Clark criticizes planned base closings(and Bolton)

[Algorem]

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-7/1116112846153570.xml&storylist=washington


5/14/2005, 7:30 p.m. ET
By CARYN ROUSSEAU
The Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Saturday that the Pentagon's plan to close military bases around the country and reorganize troops will isolate the military from the American people and the rest of the world...

"We're losing influence abroad when we bring those troops home, and we lose the interaction with America when we create these super bases," Clark said in a speech to the Arkansas Associated Press Managing Editors Association...

Small communities lose sight of the armed forces," he said. "I like for the Army and the armed forces to be representative of the people they protect, not an elite organization."..,


"Personally, I don't like bullies," he added. "Just because you outrank somebody doesn't mean you don't respect them and their judgment."...

[xultar]

1. ...

:loveya:

[leftchick]

2. me too

:loveya:

[antonialee839]

20. Me three

:loveya:

[KittyWampus]

3. We Don't Need Those Bases... All Our Troops'll Be Stationed In Iraq.

[Yellow_Dog]

28. and

Iran,
Afghanistan,
Korea

to name a few other lovely places around the world.

[Pithy Cherub]

4. Am very happy Clark is against the "Wal-Marting" of our military.

Rummy would not consider intangibles - like maintaining connectedness to America - as part of his "planning". We have all been horribly subjected to how much groupthink is inculcated into Rummy's DoD efforts.

Go Clark! May the Force be with you and more 4 stars (or equivalent) of all military branches should commence speaking shortly!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

25. Wal Marting says it all

One thing I haven't seen discussed much is that as part of the base closings more work that is traditionally done by the military will be contracted out.

Can you say more money for Haliburton?

[mia]

38. Can you say more money for Haliburton?

That's the name of the game.

[DoNotRefill]

5. Hmmmm.....I thought....

it was a GOOD thing that we were pulling our troops out of the countries that they're currently occupying ^h ^h ^h I mean that we're "guests" of.....

[entanglement]

44. Its nice to see ^h ^h ^h on DU, kinda reminds me of /.

:)

[IndianaGreen]

6. Clark: Bolton "somewhat of a bully."

Clark is right about Bolton but he is wrong when he speaks about the connection between the military and civilians. What has shattered the connection between the military and civilians is the all-volunteer military. The citizen military was lost when Nixon got rid of the draft, which was also what prevented Presidents from engaging in military adventures for fear of public backlash.

[AndyTiedye]

16. But The Draft DIDN'T Prevent Military Misadventures Like Vietnam

The draft made Vietnam possible. Once Nixon ended the draft, he had to
end the war very soon thereafter. Boosh** will not be able to carry
on his Crusade much longer without the draft because he will have nobody
to fight it for him.



Cowboy Reagan couldn't get us into any but the smallest of wars for the
same reason. Bush 1 contented himself with chasing Saddam out of Kuwait
and then bringing the troops home. Bush 2 has only been able to carry
out his Crusade by shamefully abusing the reserves. He will go on
doing so until he "has to" start up the draft. Then he will draft all
the troops he wants to invade Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, & North Korea :nuke::scared:

If you can't get enough volunteers to fight the war, maybe the war isn't
worth fighting.

[Cha]

7. Good on ya Clark!

"Clark also voiced his concerns about Bush's nomination of John Bolton to United Nations ambassador, calling Bolton "somewhat of a bully."

"He's going to have a very tough time in the United Nations," Clark said. "When you come in with that much overhang, with all this reputation against you, it's that much more difficult. And all that's known in the United Nations.

"Personally, I don't like bullies," he added. "Just because you outrank somebody doesn't mean you don't respect them and their judgment."

[Joey Liberal]

8. Clark is correct

It is scary that we are putting all of our military in the red states. We are creating another Nazi Germany in the south, and the republicans are the Nazis.

[ckramer]

9. I don't understand Clark

"We're losing influence abroad when we bring those troops home, and we lose the interaction with America when we create these super bases," Clark said...


What was he talking about?

[dogman]

10. He's talking about the relationships people form with the community

they live in. Isolating the troops from the people advances distance and elitism.

[LandOLincoln]

23. I'm assuming that some--perhaps most--of the threatened bases

are like Kirtland here in Albuquerque. It's in town--right on the south edge of town next to the airport--as opposed to being miles outside in the boonies and more or less self-contained.

When the list came out yesterday, all the local news types were interviewing very relieved small businesspeople--dry cleaners, auto shops, etc. on Gibson Boulevard & environs (the northern boundary of Kirtland)--who would probably have gone out of business if Kirtland had closed.

In other words, Kirtland's as much a part of Albuquerque as is UNM.

OTOH, UNM doesn't have the country's (or is it the world's?) largest stockpile of nukes.

As far as I know, anyway...

[Daphne08]

39. Yes, and this becomes dangerous!

Very dangerous to our populace.

[leftchick]

11. I believe he is referring to

the consolidation of American bases at home and making "super bases" in the US.

[DoNotRefill]

12. He's also saying we shouldn't pull our troops out of Europe...

and Asia.

You know, the ones that are "guests". They weren't an army of occupation, really.... that's why the Okinowans love them so....

[dogman]

14. There are mainly two things people like about the troops.

Their money and the security they offer when there is a threat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Clark is a N.A.T.O believer

Which comes as no surprise given his background, but it is questionable at best if Bush's neocons are. They want unilateral sole decision making super power status for America. Bush has been very willing to rupture relations with "old Europe", Clark feels that the United States and the European Democracies have shared values and traditions and that we are most secure in ways that extend well beyond military matters, when we stay closely aligned with cooperation with Europe.

Bush would be pulling back significant troops from nations like Germany. Clark believes close cooperation with N.A.T.O. nations, military and otherwise, is in our national interests. A lot of the prior integration of western defenses was facilitated by America maintaining a significant ongoing presence in Europe, and that integration crossed over into political cooperation. Loss of that is what I think Clark fears.

As to the domestic side, I think some other posters have nailed it. Plans are to move most of the troops into solid Red States with overall less liberal traditions. I too think that is dangerous in the long run.

[DrDebug]

40. He is correct in prefering NATO over unilateral decisions

Because it's safer and has more checks and balances before action can be taken. And that's exactly why NATO is being made less important nowadays. The same goes for the UN.

I love this statement:
"Personally, I don't like bullies," he added. "Just because you outrank somebody doesn't mean you don't respect them and their judgment."

[Donna Zen]

42. Exchange program as well

Troops and their families benefit from living in "Old Europe" in non-military ways. The regime prefers to keep that interaction to a minimum. Keeping them locked on the big Red Farm would also keep their dials tuned to rush.

Clark also believes that if we are remain economically competitive against the growing economic power of China/India, then we must make "permenent" friends with those countries with whom we share the closest ties. NATO is one piece of that alliance.

One more chess piece: France has long advocated for a larger EU military. Moving away from our European connections will reduce our leverage with NATO countries, and provide fuel to the fire burning in some hearts for the French notion.

Finally_Germany is currently paying part of the bill for that US force, now we will pick up the tab.

Again_this move will not keep American troops out of other countries; it will free the regime to move those troops more often and to countries that would do better without us.

[ticapnews]

37. The Brunswick Naval Air Station isn't just a base off by itself...

it is in the heart of Brunswick. There are two shopping plazas right outside the main gates. There is a very large section of the town off the base dedicated to housing for the military families. Here across the river, my neighborhood of about 60 homes is roughly 50% military. Their kids go to our local schools, they work in our businesses. My next door neighbors at the moment are crewmen on P-3 Orions and they are leasing the house from a base commander whose family was deployed to Hawaii last year. Now those guys will be leaving, and the commander who owns the house will probably have to sell it because he'll be stationed in Jebbyland when his deployment is up.

It isn't just the economic loss that we'll be feeling. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and half your neighbors were gone. The interaction with America is very real. They aren't just an offshoot of the community, they are fully integrated into the community. Losing them is going to hurt in more places than the pocketbook.

[Adelante]

15. All those jobs going to the Red states

Tens of thousands, conservatively speaking, of jobs.

[Adelante]

18. I used to live near Fort Monmouth in NJ

"The installation contributes $3 billion to the local and state economies; its closing would put about 6,000 people out of work, deal a blow to area businesses and close the book on a base that's been part of the community since 1917."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=757043


Texas is gaining 9,000 jobs, and, of course, Florida is gaining jobs and no bases closed.

[Sparkly]

19. I grew up in New London, CT.

It makes no sense to me for them to close the sub base there. It's a good location, home of the first submarine, and its proximity to General Dynamics - Electric Boat works well. It's also home of the Coast Guard Academy (at least for now). The base and EB are crucial to the whole area's economy.

[Adelante]

22. And all of it so close to NYC

You would think they would WANT forces in the area. New York State's biggest base is up at the Canadian border.

[Sparkly]

21. Just noticed that my hometown paper dared to point that out....

While Democratic-leaning Connecticut would take a huge hit if the Groton base is closed by the Pentagon, as was recommended Friday morning, Lieberman and the rest of the congressional delegation said they did not think it was partisan retribution for this small northeastern state's tendency to vote Democratic in Republican times.

“We discussed that issue this morning,” said Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District. “We have no reason to believe that this is a red state-blue state issue.”

But the Pentagon's plan to close 33 major military installations will hammer the blue states — those that voted for Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election — with job losses, and none more so than Connecticut, which stands to lose more than 8,500 military jobs, the highest loss for any state in the nation.

While red states like Texas and Georgia would see some vital military bases close, experts said, it is the blue states like Connecticut and California that would lose the most jobs.
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=00EC67FB-7F01-4476-948A-90604094A2D9

So glad Joementum doesn't think there's any politics involved. :eyes:

[Auntie Bush]

34. Looks like Joe is going to HAVE to vote for Bolton if he wants Groten to

remain open.

Isn't it a coincidence that this list of base closings came just in time for the Bolton vote? No politics here either!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

27. My state (Washington) is blue and will gain 1,770 jobs overall.

It believe Clark is correct. Most of the base closings are in small communities.

[Sparkly]

17. I'm glad he spoke out on this.

Does anyone have a transcript of his complete speech?

I hope we'll hear from General McPeak and Admiral Crowe, too.

[FrenchieCat]

24. The Rumsfeld Masterplan of rearranging our military....

is politically motivated (what else? doh!)and you can guarantee that the end result will stink like shit.....like everything else Rumsfeld and this administration thinks of and touches.

Super bases are dangerous as they become instant targets...and become a microcosm all to their lonesome.

Moving bases from New England over to the South does what....exactly? Replace textile industry lost jobs?

The Republicans are disassembling one of the greatest forces in the world......guess will be contracting soldiers round this time, next year.

And what in the fuck are we going to do about Darfur? Just saw Hotel Rwanda for the 2nd time (on DVD this time)....and I'm pissed as hell, again.

and don't get me started on Bolton. Wes was way too kind. Bolton is a real prick asshole. The kind, you can be sure, enjoys watching a little torture with his morning coffee.

[roscoeroscoe]

26. all politics are local...

...and nothing is more political than base closings. remember a study done a year ago that federal funding is increasing in states that supported bush? so simple.
this is really ugly. joe lieberman is the worst kind of power sucking fool. a bad case of dusty knees. he should be ashamed.
12 years in the army, believe me towns with military facilities know what's up.
with respect to 'super bases,' believe me this is going to be a mess. it's a screamin' pain in the ass dealing with traffic at the gates of the post now. and you can't crowd in too many units without training schedules getting to be a trainwreck.
grrr.

[Donna Zen]

29. Now I get it!

Rummy is building an army of empire. Currently the forces deployed to European bases move with their families, a reason, Clark has stated in the past, that we do not have an army of empire but one of families. It should come as no surprise that this circumstance did not suit the junta.

True, we do have bases in other countries, but "bringing them home" does mean that the forces will not be in other countries. It means that their families will be here... and the forces will be everywhere. Mobile strike forces based and continually cycled through an isolating system.

This is going to wreck havoc on families, create a military severed from the American people and people living in foreign lands where new bases are established, and result in huge megabases.

ps A message from Wes to us: keep the faith.

[AzDar]

32. ..and we all know how successful Rummy's schemes have been in

the past; he's the numbnuts who insisted that a "small and mobile"
troop deployment in Iraq would be more effective than the true number needed to go in and get the job done (as it were) properly. He shouldn't even have a JOB right now, let alone be allowed to further
implement his "visions".

[Donna Zen]

36. Whoops!

Amending the paragraph in my previous post to read:

True, we do have bases in other countries, but "bringing them home" does not mean that the forces will not be in other countries. It means that their families will be here... and the forces will be everywhere. Mobile strike forces based and continually cycled through an isolating system.

^^^^^^^^^^

It was late, and I was too late to edit, sorry.

But it is an important point: The move to megabases will not limit deployment to other countries; in fact, it will allow for just the opposite. For those who would criticize Clark's statement thinking that somehow Rummy's move needs to be applauded as non-interventionist planning; think again.

[mia]

30. This story has legs and voters won't forget the closings -

so many jobs and dollars lost to these communities.

http://news.google.com/news?q=Clark+criticizes+planned+base+closings&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-26,GGLD:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&filter=0&scoring=d

[Adelante]

31. You're right

I saw it on Yahoo news front page this morning. I'm hoping somebody puts Clark's face on TV and lets him rip on this.

[JNelson6563]

33. I believe a lot of Rethug

Congress-critters are going to be getting earfuls. This is another thing they will have to at least appear to disagree with Team Bush over for the sake of their own political survival.

Let the squirming begin.

Julie

[Auntie Bush]

35. Thanks for posting this. I had been wondering what Clark felt

about this...silly me...I should have known!But it's nice to hear him express it publicly and on the record. I wonder how long it will take for him to be able to say..."I told you so!" After one of those super sized bases gets zapped with some kind of WMD?

I just hope Clark can help awaken the country as to what is happening. At least it will make a good campaign issue...if irreversible damage hasn't already been done. Go Clark Go!!!:bounce:

[lovuian]

41. Wesley Clark slams Bolton, military base closures

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=cfc326f3560b7770

Big News Network.com Sunday 15th May, 2005

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark has called John Bolton a bully and says he'll have a tough time at the UN.

Clark, a former NATO commander and an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, said Saturday Bolton, President Bush's nominee for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations post, was "somewhat of a bully".

"Personally, I don't like bullies," he added. "Just because you outrank somebody doesn't mean you don't respect them and their judgment."

"When you come in with that much overhang, with all this reputation against you, it's that much more difficult. And all that's known in the United Nations."
more...

I always loved Clark for his honesty!!!

[DanCa]

43. "Personally, I don't like bullies,"

Go Wes Go.