Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

It is said that only Nixon could go to China. I believe that the most important reason to elect Clark next year is that he is the only guy who can "go to the Pentagon."

In the DOD-driven foreign policy and military-worshipping cultural environment that the Bush administration has created since 9/11, we need Presidential leadership that can credibly take on the Pentagon as we have never needed it before.

Clark will not be unassailable, but he will have tons more political cover than any civilian, especially any other Democrat, to work the following issues:

1. The Pentagon budget (he has famously said that the military is "a want machine" and that an ideal place to look for the money we'll need for health care needs is there). He knows where the budgetary bodies are likely to be buried and can more effectively stare down The Boys on whether certain things are REALLY military necessities. He won't cut what's really needed, either.
2. Gays in the military. He knows reforms to policy have to come from the military itself, but he also knows how to cajole and pressure the right people the right way.
3. The downshifting of Rumsfeld's militarization of foreign policy, a turning away from the early resort to force. But Clark's credentials at the same time will help to reassure people that he isn't "weakening" us.

In terms of the election, I'd also like to note that the Bush administration has hitched their political star to all-militarism-all-the-time, so they have blunted some of their own ability to attack Clark with the same viciousness that they will be able to deploy against other Democrats. Although Clark will of course not be immune from the Republican lies-'n'-hysteria machine, they will have to be much, much more careful. They only succeeded in smearing Max Cleland because Max was low profile and didn't fight back. We already know Clark will -- in fact he's already smacking Turkey Boy around with STYLE.

There is also simply less basic ammunition to throw at Clark. I think he poses much, much more of a political problem for Rove and company.

But, ultimately, the main reason I support him is because of what I think he'll be able to do by virtue of his unique history, image, skills and qualities when he gets into the White House. The political value of having a guy who can lead this nation to the to the left from his personal national security fortress is an incredible, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Democratic party.

I believe the advertisement that just started playing down here in South Carolina this week: he'll make an EXTRAORDINARY President.

•  Re: Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

  Let's speculate that Clark does not get the Dem Nom, but a Dem runs and beats WhistleAss.  

  Would you be glad to see Clark as SecDef if he wanted the job in a new Dem administration?  

  I would be overjoyed if Clark were not the President for him to go and clean up the Pentagon!  

  I would also be overjoyed if Clark were president to have him go over and clean up the Pentagon.

  Either way America wins!  

  The Iraq CHICKEN-hawk War - 442 Dead, over 9,000 Wounded, over 1,200 Amputees... fought the CHICKEN-hawk Way... with other people's money and other people's liv

  by RedMeatDem on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 01:52:35 PM PDT

  •  Re: Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

    Yes, I think Clark would be a good SecDef, but it takes a PRESIDENT to actually push scary stuff through and get Congress and the nation on board. If Howard Dean is sitting in the Big Chair, the right wing insinuations and screaming against anything he proposes will never stop, even if Clark is fronting the Pentagon.

    Bush's image/popularity and aura of "no-nonsense leadership" (such as it is) is actually providing cover for Rumsfeld's military bungling. The right wing would ensure that the OPPOSITE would happen under Dean. They would even impugn anything wise that Clark was trying to do as something stupid that  "liberal draft dodger" Dean was really behind.

    by Julia Grey on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 02:16:54 PM PDT

•  Re: Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

  I read the biography of Dwight Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose.  One point he makes clear is that after Sputnik the entire nation was in a tizzy and wanted to hike the military budget to something astronomical, and Eisenhower held the line and kept the military to a reasonable size.  Thus there is precedent for a general being better able to resist the pentagon.

  (Contrast to Clinton who was unwilling to ever to anything the generals didn't like.  Heck, Bush I cut the military budget a lot more than Clinton did, and Clinton to his shame wouldn't even sign the landmines treaty.)

  Regarding your third point, however, I think anyone but Bush will be fine there.  The military establishment has been conservative (as in not liking risks) has been resistant to these overseas adventuring.  Rumsfeld & co. are viewed as civilians who are ignoring the military officials, not military men who are imposing their view.  (For example, in providing about half the troops that the Pentagon said they'd need to occupy Iraq.)
  

  by Go Vegetarian on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 01:54:40 PM PDT

  •  Re: Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

    The military establishment has been conservative (as in not liking risks) has been resistant to these overseas adventuring.  Rumsfeld & co. are viewed as civilians who are ignoring the military officials, not military men who are imposing their view.

    I was thinking more of public opinion and neocon squawking on the "pre-emptive" doctrine, which needs to be definitively stomped down. I think Clark would have considerably more moral authority in the bully pulpit to explain directly to the American people why this is not only not a good thing but actively unwise, and getting downhome macho flagwavers to UNDERSTAND it and BELIEVE him.

    by Julia Grey on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 02:21:17 PM PDT

•  Re: Nixon to China, Clark to the Pentagon

  a very interesting quote

  In Sept... General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and   rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. `I don't see why we can't   have health insurance for every single American,' he said. Asked how   he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget   he is more familiar with -- the Pentagon's. `The armed forces are   a want machine,' he said. `They are structured to develop want.'"

  by smartone on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 02:13:14 PM PDT