UK Observer profiles Wesley Clark

[T_i_B]

With Wesley Clark entering the race there are one or two profiles of the guy in the UK press at the moment. Here is the UK Oberver one. You can make of this what you will but I personally have a question. What are Wesley Clark's policies?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1046348,00.html

The ace in Clark's pack lies in the word 'General'. For Democrats it used to be a dirty word but now it is a totem. For half a century the Republicans have pounded the Democrats for being soft on national security. Clark, like a white knight on a charger, can finally slay that dragon. It says much about America that the only sort of anti-war candidate with a chance of being elected is a four-star General, and Clark is that man. Cut him and he bleeds the army. He fought in one war and led Nato in another. But he opposed invading Iraq and, unlike many other Democrat candidates, he did it from the beginning. If the Democrats did not already have Clark they would have to invent him. Perhaps they did.

Certainly they have been trying to pull him into the fold for a long time, and so have the Republicans. It was only days after the 11 September terrorist attacks when an Arkansas Republican leader phoned the General and asked him to join them. With a war brewing, the Democrats, holed by their old 'national security' weakness, would be finished for a generation, the Republican insisted. Clark (who has not always been the committed Democrat he must now appear) refused. The Iraq débcle has changed everything. If he wins the White House next year, one wonders just how much Southern humble pie that particular Republican will be forced to eat.

But is Clark the dream Democrat that so many fervently pray for? He is certainly determined enough for the job. One of the most over-employed words to describe him is 'intense'. It is true, though. He is. His whole life has been about discipline and hard work, most often shown in the service of his country. In a military career spanning 34 years he took 23 jobs and moved 31 times. At the end of it he was 'fired' (his words) after winning a war (also his words) in Kosovo as supreme comman der of Nato. That is his great strength. Republicans, itching to face off against the anti-war Howard Dean, can't accuse Clark of a lack of patriotism. When Clark was wounded in an ambush in Vietnam he taught himself to walk without a limp despite missing a quarter of the flesh from one calf. He taught himself a firm handshake again, despite losing muscle tissue from his right thumb. His motivation? He did not want to be furloughed out of the army. That scares Republicans. You simply can't accuse a man who took four bullets from the Viet Cong of not loving his country.

More importantly, Clark the General must become Clark the Politician. He must ask for money, he must ask for help, he must want people to love him, to trust him and want to vote for him. Generals don't usually know how to ask for anything. In the army they order things to be done. Clark must learn to take the rough with the smooth. He must ignore the jibes that will come his way. In 1988 another former Nato commander, General Alexander Haig, sought the Republican nomination. Standing outside a factory gate and pressing the flesh, he was rebuffed by one worker. Offended, he snapped to the waiting hack pack: 'Every once in a while you meet an asshole.' Sometimes Generals and politics simply do not mix, and Haig soon withdrew. No one thinks Clark is a Haig (he is too smart, too dedicated, too keen to serve), but the point is fair. Winning wars is not the same as winning elections. Mistakes do happen.