Reply #44: Great Link!

[Donna Zen]

I liked that the articles were prior to all the political buzz and contemporary to the NATO experience. You're right, the shift in perspective allows for a greater depth in reading the new information because of the subtle contrasts of the reporting.

This bit:

Some in the military liken Clark's predicament to the one generals faced during Vietnam. In his recent book Dereliction of Duty--which has achieved a cult following among many junior officers--fast-rising officer H.R. McMaster portrays the Vietnam-era generals as a cowardly lot who chose to execute incompetent civilian orders rather than resign in protest. Indeed, the only thing that might endear Clark to his critics at this point would be his resignation.

Fortunately, Clark is not about to throw his stars on the table in a fit of pique. That would amount to ratifying a steady and dangerous trend in civilian-military relations over the past decade--namely, the loss of civilian control. It is true that Clark is taking orders from a civilian leadership--both in the United States and in Europe--that remains maddeningly equivocal. But it is just as relevant that Clark is contending with an increasingly independent military brass whose obsession with avoiding another Vietnam has helped trap the Clinton administration into avoiding ground troops, thereby rendering defeat more likely. Clark's impressive record suggests that, given the right tools, he is one of the few military leaders--or perhaps the only one--who could make a go of it in the Balkans. And yet, for all the talk of Clark being Clinton's pet, the irony is that Clinton's own inept strategy may end up delivering Clark into the hands of his Pentagon enemies.

Crystal ball working overtime.