Taking Command
Actually, Democrats and the military can get along. Here's how.

By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, December 21, 2008; B01

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats? As someone who has labored in both camps, I offer some thoughts.

Let's start by facing the truth: Democrats have long had an ambivalent relationship with the military, and vice versa. While Democrats profess to like and support the military, Republicans usually win more military and veterans' votes than Democrats, and no wonder: Democrats have been pilloried for supposedly wanting to cut defense spending, for being soft on America's enemies and for wanting to use the armed forces for "social engineering" -- code for letting openly gay soldiers serve. As one senior Army leader told me a few years ago, "The Democrats may be all in favor of using force in a crisis, but can you trust them to stick with us when the going gets tough?" Exit polls last month showed that voters who've served in the military went for the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, over Obama by 54 percent to 44 percent.

And the mistrust runs both ways. To some Democrats, the armed forces appear, in the words of one New Hampshire activist who chided me in 2003, to be an "authoritarian, hierarchical, male-dominated" institution that's out of touch with liberal values. A small number of Democrats can usually be counted on to oppose any use of force and occasionally go after the institution that makes the use of force possible. (I sometimes hear concerns on college campuses that the make-up of our all-volunteer force is not "representative" of America, but I don't see the students rushing to volunteer themselves to redress the balance.)

So it's easy to assume that the military and the Democrats don't and won't get along. It's also wrong. As the 2000 election approached, a member of the Joint Chiefs confided to me: "You know, people wouldn't believe it, but probably no one else will ever treat us as well as the Clinton administration has." From a shaky beginning, including the confidence-battering 1993 "Black Hawk Down" shootout in Somalia, the top civilians on Clinton's team and the president himself took pains to build respect and trust with the military's top brass -- above all by engaging in forthright dialogue.

Building on that, Obama is off to a promising start with the Pentagon, steering clear of a reprise of the fight over "don't ask, don't tell" and picking pragmatic, non-ideological leaders whom top military officers will find highly reassuring -- especially since so many may have discovered from personal experience that a particular partisan label is no guarantee of good leadership. Retaining Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, designating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (with her six years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee) as secretary of state and appointing James L. Jones (a retired four-star Marine general) as national security adviser should go a long way toward assuring members of the armed forces that their concerns will be given a fair hearing at the very highest levels.

But the incoming team and the Democrat-dominated Congress still need to work hard to understand the lower ranks and the culture of today's military. Perhaps as many as 75 million Americans have either served in uniform or have family members who have done so. At any given time, the armed forces total some 2 million Americans on active duty, in the National Guard or in the reserves -- all volunteers. Most read military-focused newspapers, such as the Army Times, and many live on bases, relatively isolated from nearby communities. The majority are married, and almost half have children, creating a subculture of families that endure frequent moves and frightening absences. Most Americans just can't fathom the stress and pain this lifestyle imposes (although Michelle Obama can -- as the future first lady showed by reaching out to military family members during the campaign).

Our military is a values-based institution. Don't think of it as Republican or Democratic. Sure, occasionally someone will pop up, like the radio talk-show host I met while traveling in Arizona, who assured me that he had become a dues-paying Republican while serving as a Marine officer and thought that everyone else should, too. But most of us are uncomfortable with partisanship. True, many in the military, especially those who have served longer, lean toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. (What would you expect? The military must obey the orders of the commander in chief and follow the chain of command, which means giving up one's own liberties and spending time in difficult and often very dangerous circumstances.) But the real military values aren't partisan values; they're service, loyalty, honesty, patriotism, respect, achievement and personal responsibility.

Which brings us to one more core military value, one that Democrats can easily embrace: fairness. Military leaders take care of their troops -- and their unit's families. They don't take advantage of their authority. Captains eat after their troops do, not before. Good officers get to work earlier than their subordinates and leave later. I used to joke on the campaign trail that the Army was a socialist organization: The government owned the housing and all the equipment I worked with, everyone's children went to the same schools and used the same hospitals, and the highest-ranking person (after more than 30 years in uniform) earned only about 10 or 12 times the salary of a raw recruit. In the military, we don't like favoritism, show-boating or elitism.

That's a good base upon which to build. But Democrats must also realize that the military's respect has to be earned. We don't consider ourselves an "interest group." Sure, we will always appreciate more pay, better housing and stronger veterans' benefits. But that isn't how the Democrats will win over the military. They'll win by being straight-up, clear-eyed and professional about national security. And if they are, the military will trust them, even with a painful withdrawal from Iraq and the inevitable defense cutbacks.

Above all, don't think that we are anxious to "use our toys." Forget about the Hollywood dramatics: Soldiers are the last to seek war. We know its personal and professional consequences painfully well. Those in uniform would prefer that President Obama use every other tool and method -- diplomacy, sanctions, calling in the allies -- before sending troops into combat. You're better off leaving political and economic development to others, too. As for crisis response? Please, let the diplomats work their magic first.

But the military will have to show some understanding as well. We don't have a monopoly on knowing what the nation's best interests are. National security now involves such spheres as law enforcement, the economy, the nation's industrial and scientific base and even such matters as health care and civil liberties. The military is just one voice among many.

Nor are our military plans and proposals beyond questioning. There's a lot of judgment involved in strategy and operations, and not a lot of certainty. The military is a cautious institution, and plans and options sometimes reflect just the opinion of the most senior person in the room. Even hard military "requirements" should stand up to public scrutiny. So when new members of Congress, Hill staffers and political appointees question tactics, techniques, troop levels and programs, we have to continue to treat these questions seriously and answer them with respect and diligence.

Recognize, too, that the Democrats have generally been pulling for the human side of the military. Worried about veterans' benefits, on-base child care facilities, health care and troop retention? Since at least the early 1990s, Democrats have been putting the "juice" into the all-important people programs that have made the armed forces such a successful institution today.

Finally, let's put aside the partisan legacy of Vietnam once and for all. We all grieve for the losses there and for the needy, homeless vets today. But almost no one now in uniform served in that conflict, and most of the Democrats who will be moving into offices at the National Security Council, the Pentagon and in Congress are too young to have been part of the bitter national debates over the war. Iraq just isn't Vietnam, and the debates over a U.S. withdrawal need not tear the country apart -- especially if we in the military recognize that the Democratic Party that I have been associated with is every bit as patriotic and service-oriented as any other group in the United States.

We have a president-elect who has set out a pragmatic, nonpartisan, visionary course. It's time to lay to rest the old stereotypes about feckless, pacifist Democrats and authoritarian, war-mongering soldiers. If there were ever a time to get the relationship between Democrats and the military right, this is it.

Wesley K. Clark, a retired four-star general, commanded the 1999 war in Kosovo as NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe. He is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations.

Op-Ed Contributor
What's Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

By WESLEY K. CLARK
Published: November 16, 2008
Little Rock, Ark.

When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy.

During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending.

But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers.

In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.

More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles -- necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need.

Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production -- which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications -- depends on a vibrant car industry.

To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad.

This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security.

Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Last night, I was in Chicago when our country made history -- electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

As I walked onto the field in Grant Park -- there were thousands of us around the podium -- a couple of reporters asked me what I thought of this. "Transformational," I said, "but, ask Ernest Green, right here, who was one of the original young people at Central High who broke segregation in the South. Ask him!"

It was a humbling and deeply moving experience to be there with Ernest and with former Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, Ambassador Sam Brown and his wife, and so many others who have shared our passion to set this country on the right course. And to see the faces of all around us, representing all the diversity that Barack cited in his remarks. Some were jubilant, some were softly sobbing, some were joyous, a couple were watching others in the crowd. Cell phones and cameras were everywhere as people called friends and families to share the experience.

This was, truly, a transformational event. And I can't thank you enough for making it happen and for stepping up and helping to elect candidates in critical House and Senate races down the ballot.

After we left Grant Park, we found ourselves walking back to the hotel, a couple of miles north. Celebration was still in the air, along Michigan Avenue and Wacker: groups of young people high-fiving, and shouts of "Yes, we can." I was surrounded by electric smiles and energy...so alive.

There is no doubt -- the challenges confronting our nation are great. We are engaged in two wars abroad and facing an economic crisis at home. Our nation will require great sacrifices from all of us to overcome them. However, with these challenges come tremendous opportunities, and I know we will come together to carry this great nation forward. As Barack said last night:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there."

The sight of Barack, and Joe Biden, and their families on that platform, the warmth of the crowd, and its diversity will long linger as I reflect on how America has changed, and how we have changed ourselves. And as I looked at his expression, I could see Barack's seriousness of purpose, and his recognition that far greater challenges lie ahead. But I'm proud, and so hopeful for our country.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

In Colorado, Clark primarily did volunteer-focused activities but also attended Obama's rally in Pueblo, where a press photographer captured this photo:

He also had a chance to talk personally with Obama:

More images are available at WesPAC.

In New Mexico, Clark held campaign events in Roswell and Las Cruces. There is not a lot of in-depth news coverage, but some pictures:

Clark: 'Time For Change'
Posted 2008-10-23

Retired General Says Obama's 'New Ideas' Will Work For America

By Jeremy Hunt

HARRISONBURG - As further evidence of Virginia's status as a battleground state, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign brought in another high-profile supporter to stump for him.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, campaigned for the Illinois senator Wednesday night in Harrisonburg.

"It's time for change in America," Clark told a friendly crowd of about 250 at Court Square Theater. "It's time for some new ideas and new people to bring those ideas into America."

Clark told the crowd that Obama has the vision needed to fix the country's problems, which he laid at the feet of the current Bush administration.

Four Crises In Eight Years

Clark said there have been four crises involving the United States while President Bush has been in office.

The first one, the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented, Clark said, but the administration did not heed the warning signs.

Clark also criticized the Republican president's handling of three other crises: the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, and the current economic situation.

Clark said Obama has a "responsible" plan for getting out of Iraq and a better understanding of dealing with terrorism abroad.

Obama's economic plan, including a promise to invest $150 billion in alternative energy resources over 10 years, would help the economy grow and create new jobs, Clark said.

'Re-Energized'

On Wednesday, Clark said Obama can win the election, but supporters need to "go out and speak with people in a nonpartisan way."

Stephen McDonnell, who attended the event, said he was glad Clark advocated nonpartisan campaigning.

"You don't get people to change by telling them they're wrong," he said. "It's about pointing out things that don't work."

Kevin Wilborn said Clark's speech reinforced his trust in the Democratic candidate.

"It re-energized me," he said "why I feel Barack Obama is ready to be commander in chief."

Purple Virginia

Both the Democratic and GOP presidential campaigns have been trying to drum up support in Virginia by bringing big names to the state.

Virginia has been reliably Republican for decades, as the last time the state voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

The latest SurveyUSA poll had Obama ahead of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by 6 points in Virginia, although other polls show the race much closer.

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was in Harrisonburg to stump for McCain. Graham's visit to the Harrisonburg and Rockingham County GOP headquarters also featured Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke.

Graham scoffed at Obama's poll lead, saying "I believe I will be drafted by the NFL before Obama wins Virginia."

Retired general stumps for Obama

By Mike Hixenbaugh
Rocky Mount Telegram

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Speaking as a surrogate for Barack Obama's campaign, retired U.S. Army general and one-time presidential candidate Wesley Clark told a small group of Rocky Mount veterans Wednesday that Republican John McCain lacks the temperament to serve as commander in chief.

The Vietnam War veteran and former NATO commander accused the Bush administration of mishandling its response to 9/11, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the economy. And he linked McCain as an extension of that "botched administration."

"Look, I like John McCain," Clark said at Braswell Memorial Library. "He's been in my house for dinner. He's a member of my generation. I've traveled with him, told stories with him. But we have to understand something. His ideas are the ideas of George Bush. He says he's a maverick. He isn't. He's a sidekick."

About 35 people attended Clark's speech, one of three stops in North Carolina focused on military issues.

Clark said his service in the military taught him it's the soldiers on the ground who win wars -- that real progress comes from the bottom up, not the other way around.

"And that's the way it is in America," Clark said. "A lot of people get a lot of glory out of this country and get a lot of attention, but the real work is done at the bottom. That's why, given my military experience, I can't support Republican ideals."

Clark was one of the leading voices in 2003 opposing the war in Iraq, saying at the time that it was a mistake to launch a preemptive war. Obama, too, understood that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, Clark said.

"Sen. Obama has the temperament and the mind we need as president," Clark said. "He studies, he works, he listens, he learns, he grows, he makes good decisions. He's a person who has got a great heart and a lot of compassion. And he understands that, for national security, you only use the military as a last resort."

Clark was joined by retired Marine Corps officer Jonathan Kuniholm, a Durham resident who opened the stage at Invesco Field in Denver during the final night of the Democratic National Convention. Kuniholm, a Duke biomedical engineering graduate student who lost his right arm in Iraq, has spoken out against the war and in support of Obama.

Just because you're a former serviceman, Kuniholm said to the room of veterans, doesn't mean you must support the war or a bad president.

"There's a notion that has been put forward by supporters of McCain that to question this war disrespects the service and sacrifice that's been made by the men and women of our armed forces," Kuniholm said. "That's just not a fair claim to make. To say that, I would argue, dishonors the democracy we defend. It's our duty to speak our mind, I think."

Clark said he knows something about saying what he thinks. He was criticized early in the general election after questioning McCain's prisoner of war history as a precursor to his presidency.

"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president," Clark said of McCain in June.

Obama repudiated the comment, but has continued to accept Clark's support.

Clark, prior to leaving for another campaign stop, skirted a question about rumors of Obama potentially asking him to serve as U.S. secretary of defense, should the Democrat win on Nov. 4.

"Any time a president would ask you to do something, to serve, you have to seriously consider it," Clark said. "That's what Colin Powell said, and I think that's the right answer. But I'm out here because, for me, this is the public service. It's going out and helping Americans make the right decision on who should be the next president."

(via WesPAC)

News coverage includes:

• Wesley Clark fires up Democrats
• Wes Clark stumps for Obama locally
• Gen. Wesley Clark visits Destin
• Wesley Clark thrills crowd at Harbor Docks

Links via Daily Kos diary

Update: Florida Today cover the Melbourne event.

Webcam chat at Ustream

Personal accounts: 1, 2

From the Brown campaign: 1, 2

A parade of generals walk out on stage, including Wesley Clark, to sand behind Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, USAF (Ret.) who is up there to talk about why they support Obama as commander-in-chief.

Friday morning, Clark appeared on Morning Joe although he didn't get much time to speak. Highlight (intervening comments by Scarborough removed for clarity):

That's what Americans are going to ask, and they're going to expect people like Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate to be able to handle those questions. I just can't imagine who's going to go up against Joe Biden based on the discussion we're having right now, because what you saw from the Democrats last night is a really strong team. You saw Barack Obama who's talking about judgment. He's talking about the important judgment calls the President has to make. He's saying if there's going to be a debate about who's ready to be Commander in Chief and who's got the judgment and temperament, let's have it. And then you've got Joe Biden right behind him who's very experienced and savvy, just returned from Georgia. It's a heck of a line-up, and I think it's the kind of line-up that's going to reassure Middle America that Democrats are a party that can take care of this country's national security.

Update: Could this item on the convention schedule be why he's going to Denver?

Retired Generals Tribute Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration (Ret) Accompanied by additional generals

--

I'm in Munich right now, but I can't tell you how ready I am to head to Denver and join my fellow Democrats.

The Democratic Party is ready to lead and address the many challenges ahead, and Barack Obama is the leader we need for our country and to help humanity meet today's global challenges.

We're a party loaded with talent. Like many of you, I've been thrilled by the speeches at the Democratic National Convention so far. Hillary Clinton was great last night. Her strength, her character, her call for unity. Her speech just proves once again that she is a great American and has many years of distinguished public service ahead of her.

And what an inspiration Ted Kennedy was, as was Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker of the House. Brian Schweitzer, the history-making Governor of Montana and Mark Warner, a business executive, distinguished former Governor and soon-to-be a remarkable U.S. Senator.

Tonight, I'm looking forward to catching the speeches of our honored former President Bill Clinton and our vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden. We are so fortunate that these two outstanding men are Democrats.

And then there's tomorrow. Our Party is so fortunate at this time in history to be nominating Barack Obama. After Michelle's incredibly warm and personal speech on Monday, any American can see the strength of character in their family. It's clear that when the Obamas become first family, they'll definitely bring change to America.

I can't wait to hear Senator Obama's words in person. He's warned us not to expect that he can duplicate the electricity from his memorable speech in 2004, but I think he's just being wise to play down expectations. He has proven to be a remarkable human being with incredible judgment, an outstanding sense of direction, and unmatched communication skills. I fully expect to be inspired, as I was in 2004.

I'm proud to be a Democrat, and I'm proud to ask you to pull together with me. It's time to help elect our candidates to every office. From mayors to governors, from state legislators to Congress. And especially to come together behind Barack Obama.

Barack is going to be the leader of a great team of Democrats in this election campaign. And he's going to become a great American President.

I believe he has the skills and resolve to strengthen America's security, rebuild America's economy, and restore Americans' faith in the future.

Our challenge is clear. We must win in November.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

Meanwhile, Tom Baer hopes Obama is listening and will take heed.

CNN appearance below:

Update: Later Clark appeared on Fox and the Ed Schultz radio show, which also covered Pakistan.

Video of Fox appearance:

Later still, the Jon Elliott radio show.

Clark to help Tuke raise cash for race
Dem Senate candidate hopes to narrow Alexander's $3M lead
By Tom Humphrey
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Later: A report on the day

Tuke's campaign manager, Ben Chao, said Monday that Clark, a former presidential candidate who carried Tennessee in the 2004 campaign before losing nationally to John Kerry, will host a fundraising reception in Nashville on Thursday.

He said a "huge national Democrat," who he declined to name, will host an event next week.

The most recent campaign finance disclosures, covering the period through July 18, show that Republican Alexander had almost $3.2 million cash on hand while Tuke had $119,690.

Tuke won the Democratic nomination in a field of six candidates last Thursday. Alexander was unopposed for the GOP nomination.

The latest campaign disclosure for Tuke reported total spending of $320,990, considerably more than any of his Democratic competitors but far less than the $1.7 million in spending reported so far by the Alexander campaign.

Tuke got 58,990 votes, or 32.2 percent, in the Democratic primary. Runner-up was Gary G. Davis, who spent nothing and got 39,122 votes, or 21.3 percent.

Former Knox County Clerk Mike Padgett reported expenditures totaling $121,400 and finished third with 33,453 votes, or 18.3 percent. Mark Clayton, whose name appeared first on the ballot, reported no spending to the Federal Election Commission and had 17.6 percent of the vote.

A total 182,724 votes were cast in the Democratic primary. Alexander received 243,056 votes running against no one in the Republican primary.

While acknowledging the primary results are not cause for confetti and balloons, Chao said the campaign was successful by targeting key areas where limited money could be spent most effectively.

The primary campaign focused on the Memphis and Nashville areas, including radio and TV advertising that ran nowhere else in the state. Tuke won in those areas, which typically have a high Democratic primary turnout.

"We only spent money where we knew we would get the maximum return on investment," he said.

Strategy for the fall campaign, Chao said, involves five targeted areas, an odd patchwork of coalitions and coordination with other Democratic campaigns.

"It's going to be a very different general election than any we've ever seen," he said.

While declining to elaborate in detail, he said coalitions would include urban voters, who may be inspired to higher-than-normal turnout by Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and veterans, who may be inspired by Tuke's record of service as a Marine and Alexander's "terrible record on veterans issues."

WesPAC has the transcript. A highlight:

And so, the result is that you've got a split emerging in Europe and this is what the United States has to work with. If we're going really to check Russian aggression, we, we best do it not with force but with unity and resolve, and that requires leadership. And I think Barack Obama's the right person to provide that leadership.

Update: Later, Clark appeared on Fox to promote his view about how to resolve the Georgia crisis through strengthening U.S.-European unity and NATO. Cavuto seemed more interested in trying to trap Clark into saying that Obama was "weak" (i.e., not sufficiently warmongering), and looks to have cut him off at the end!