Mike T, I think you mean "psychological," not "physiological." Don't let your rage get the better of you, or no one will be able to comprehend you.

What sort of military-generated propaganda are you referring to? I find most of it is generated by the free-market media.

Anyway, as mid-level officer in the Coast Guard, I can say, the author has a good point. As others here have pointed out, the politics of military officers are no monolithic (although you will generally find a lot more right than left). But there is a certain narrowness of vision that comes from spending a career in one organization, a natural biproduct of pride in one's organization and becoming an expert in your field. Even at my level I can feel certain opnions calcifying.

I'm sure the same accusation can be lobbed at many civilian politicians, too, depending on their background. Some are business-oriented, some legal-oriented, some have little foreign experience, some have little executive experience. But as another pointed out, there are common skills which come with rising to the top, and though it may take a few years to gain new knowledge and appreciation for things outside one's previous ken, that doesn't mean their thinking can't expand. Aviator McCain can become a successful Senator. Executive Warner can become a successful Governor.

I, for one, would like to see some more former enlisted take an interest in political office. If I have a concern, its that former flag officers have a limited perspective even with regard to military matters, and a couple former 1st Sgts or Master Chiefs would have a lot to offer.

Please note that General Wesley K. Clark is an international war criminal. what kind of message does that send to the rest of the world!

Jai wrote" I don't know about you folks, but that's exactly what I want in political leadership at the highest levels."

That mentality IS the problem. There are those who want a "political leader", either because of their ignorance or because they have been taught (through the military) that there must be "political leadership".

The "political leadership" was and always has been BY THE PEOPLE. It is only in the recent decade that the government has been slowly eroding at this founding principle of Democracy.

I stand by my prior statement and ask any coward in the military and/or military funded enterprise to address the public that they are to serve on the issue of disseminating domestic propaganda and domestic spying.
Where are these so called brave men and woman? They hide form the fact that they are traitors of the highest order, beginning at the top.... Bush&co.

IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THOSE IN GOVERNEMNT WHO THREATEN OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!

I find myself completely baffled by people like the author here, or like "EricYendall" who posted above. Is this where the All Volunteer Military has brought us? Citizens who are SO COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what real soliders, sailors and marines are like that they think we all share some "military mindset" with the same views on policy, the same methods to implement policy, and the same leadership styles to influence the people who will have to live with the policy?

I recently got into an argument with a friend on the far left just the other day. She said, well, my father was in the military, so I know you're all strict authoritarian thinkers. Duh, sister. YOUR daddy may have been a strict authoritarian. Don't be so bigotted about the rest of us. Even if the majority of senior military personnel were that way -- and I don't believe a majority are but will admit that it probably applies to many -- it's pure prejudice to apply the stereotype to any one of us as an individual.

There are only two assumptions you can make about career officers like General Clark and Admiral Sestak. First, that they cared enough about service to country to have spent most of their lives making sacrifices for the common defense and general welfare of this nation. Second, that they have some significant level of experience and proven achievement in leading the men and women, and managing the resources, of large bureaucratic organizations.

I don't know about you folks, but that's exactly what I want in political leadership at the highest levels.

I find myself completely baffled by people like the author here, or like "EricYendall" who posted above. Is this where the All Volunteer Military has brought us? Citizens who are SO COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what real soliders, sailors and marines are like that they think we all share some "military mindset" with the same views on policy, the same methods to implement policy, and the same leadership styles to influence the people who will have to live with the policy?

I recently got into an argument with a friend on the far left just the other day. She said, well, my father was in the military, so I know you're all strict authoritarian thinkers. Duh, sister. YOUR daddy may have been a strict authoritarian. Don't be so bigotted about the rest of us. Even if the majority of senior military personnel were that way -- and I don't believe a majority are but will admit that it probably applies to many -- it's pure prejudice to apply the stereotype to any one of us as an individual.

There are only two assumptions you can make about career officers like General Clark and Admiral Sestak. First, that they cared enough about service to country to have spent most of their lives making sacrifices for the common defense and general welfare of this nation. Second, that they have some significant level of experience and proven achievement in leading the men and women, and managing the resources, of large bureaucratic organizations.

I don't know about you folks, but that's exactly what I want in political leadership at the highest levels.

The stereotype and the bigotry is are laughable! We can't have a General as President during the "WAR ON TERRA" who led, planned and won the last war we fought while holding down a 19 nation coalition and at the same time trying to keep the Pentagon long knives out of his back...but somehow, the Media wants to push a Women (Hillary) and a an articulate Black Man (Obama), both WITHOUT any experience in Foreign Affairs (well maybe Hillary went to a few dinners) and National Security. Yet, the media's calling card almost each and everyday is terra alert, terra alert, Osama tape, Osama tape!

Now why would the media want to push the laters but not the former on Democrats....in the meantime, Republicans get POW fame John McCain and 9/11 hero Giuliani.

Now, what's wrong with that picture? Doesn't even make sense. Where's the political analysis around here? I'm not finding it, at all!

Here is part of a speech I just heard delivered in New Hampshire about three hours ago, taken off a tape I made. It's all I have the time to transcribe now:

"I want you to think about that piece of legislation that got, that President Bush bragged about on Tuesday, that Act that took away Habeas Corpus from "enemy combatents", that Act that allows testimony obtained by torture to be used in a court of law. That Act that reduces this great proud nation to the status of some other country, that we don't belong to. A country that imprisons, that tortures, that bends the law for expediency.

This is a nation at risk. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not business as usual"

Wes Clark

And I wonder if the cowards who are in the US military engaging in Physiological Operations against American citizens are brave enough to face their fellow citizens.

I think not.

This is why someone who has/had a career in the military can never lead the people.
We the people have been deceived and betrayed by the military complex. It has been made corrupt.

It is time that the people of this Nation pull the mask off of the military complex and put the military complex back where it belongs; Behind the people and not in front of the people.

IT IS TIME THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES BE REINSTATED AND INSIST THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BETRAYED US ARE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.

I first wrote this in March but I think it still holds:

A General In Politics:

I think Wesley Clark is the antidote to, not an aspect of, any perceived "problem" anyone might fear about military influence in America. Clark through his carefully reasoned statements, embrace of public debate and the importance of dissent, advocacy of a model of international cooperation over international domination, stress on the critical role of diplomacy in resolving international disputes, and passionate repeated emphasis that force should only, only, only be used as a last resort, reorients the aura associated with the military that jingoist propaganda attempts to capitalize on. There is nothing that more thoroughly discredits civilian chickenhawk efforts to glorify War as a means to pursue nationalistic policies than a thoughtful well spoken General contradicting each and every one of their carefully rehearsed arguments.

Clark is the man best able to put the military back into the role first established for it by George Washington. In that way he is like an Eisenhower for the current times. The fear articulated is the General Douglas MacArthur path not taken. I hear that fear and respect that fear, but it was MacArthur's peer, Dwight Eisenhower, who restored the militarys proper civic role in the publics perception, and Ike was invaluable to our Democracy in having been able to do that for us all. But there is another maybe even more critical role that Wes Clark is playing for our Democracy right now. He is powerfully challenging what had increasingly been becoming "conventional wisdom", that the military is linked to the Republican Party. That linkage was not accidental, nor is it a side event in the American political struggle that is shaping this new century.

The Republican Party has done everything in its considerable power to link itself to the military, and the military to itself. That, I hold, is a threat to our Democracy. Americas military has historically been non partisan. If the public is ever successfully sold a bill of goods that says support for the Republican Party is equivalent to support for our Military, then our Republic will be in grave danger. General Clark has provided a strong Democrat Party persona to challenge the Military equals Republican equation. He does so at a critical time when George Bush is running around the country using the American military as his personal stage prop. Wes Clark is helping restore an essential equilibrium to our political system at a critical time in our history.

To the above I will now add, has the OpEd writer and some responders here really forgoten the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after World War II, or the man who presented it for whom it was named, General George Marshall? Both seemed pretty darn enlightened to me.

I was a draft card burner during the Viet Nam War, no one would ever describe me as a pro military "groupie", but even I, a war protester over sevewral decades, can recognize a prejudice when I see it. I was a Clark skeptic early in 2003, but I became a firm Clark supporter later that year. There is absolutely nothing rigid or authority centric about Wes Clark's thinking.

I suggest that those who are so quick to make negative assumptions about another person should first try geting to know that person first. That's what I did with Wes Clark. I've read him, I've seen him, I've met him, and I've listened closely to what he has to say. Wes Clark isn't an abstraction, and my opinion of him isn't based on a knee jerk abstraction either. I know, I know, reaching a conclusion that way takes some effort. It's so much easier to be an Arm Chair Anti General.

Eisenhower was a great president and a former general.He was the last military officer to become president.His first four years were not that grand because the congress would not support his inititives.So when it came time to run again he campaigned for democrats and appointed some to office.His second term was the most prosperous in history for a rebulican president and we had four years of peace.

I've read Hastings' comments which echo the administration's hazy notion of somehow winning or defeating or somesuch. Who, how?

When the Missouri pulled into Tokyo Bay, there was a defeated military with swords who laid them down. They signed a treaty. Who will do that here? Why should they?

History is clear, our insurgency in the 18th century won...why not theirs in the 21st?

I am disappointed that many people misunderstand the career officers of our military. Sure there are a few Curtis Lemay mad bomber types, but most are well-educated in the doctrine of the conservation of resources, especially military. Rummy and his Neo-cons, with an assist from Chalabi, are the ones who got us into this mess along with the Strategizer-in Chief. They didn't listen to the Generals and look at where we are now: tied up in Iraq, and unable to do anything about Iran or North Korea.

I agree with Mike T, I think America electing a former GENERAL as its leader sends the wrong message to the world. 30 years of ordering people to march in a straight line seems too indoctrinated for me. We need someone in the White House who would be sceptical of the military.

True Statespeople....

that's what we need. I believe that America has experimented enough lately with novice politicians. And what do novices do, they rely on people like Henry Kissinger (a man who was in part responsible for America being involved in and loosing the war in Vietnam) for advice.

We need some erudite and well-rounded individuals who are qualified to assume the office of President, individuals who are competent enough to confront the myriad of problems that a nation of 300 million (people plus 13 million non-documented individuals) can face, including war!

Some of the names of candidates who are already being proposed as Presidential candidates for the 2008 election are 1st and 2nd term Senators and Congressman. Haven't we learned anything from the leader of the current administration, look where the country is now, at war and internally divided? Muhammad Ali said it best, a couple of decades ago, 'Not Just Anybody Can Be The President'.

I believe that the leader must have some background or training in military affairs, and not just some token identification with the military! I am not looking for a war hawk like John McCain and others, however, the person that sends another person to die in a military conflict should have been in a military conflict before him or herself.

I suspect that the latter will temper one's choice before rushing the country off to war, for some people do not understand that neither war nor the specter of war is the answer to every geopolitical problem that the country will face!

It might also be a good idea to make future Commanders-in-Chief serve in battles, just as some of the chiefs and chieftans of the past were known to do. Well at least ban the Commanders-in-Chief from golfing, vacationing, hunting and banqueting while other people are being sent away to die!

Breaking news about the elections!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.counterpunch.org
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

Pagegate swamps two additional female GOP House members. Scandal becoming political equivalent of a general alarm fire. WMR has received further confirmation that Pagegate details were revealed by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement members as a last resort to ensure the defeat of GOP members of Congress who have been blackmailed over the years for their involvement in pederasty or covering it up. In fact, some of the members targeted were originally blackmailed by CIA-connected elements tied to child prostitution as far back as the 1960s. The blackmail was always held in reserve as an insurance policy for elements tied to "the Agency," which have now found it necessary to exercise their "options."

A number of past and present GOP members of the House Page Board have been implicated in the growing scandal. It has been reported that current Page Board member Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico covered up her husband's own brush with the law over "inappropriate contact with a minor" in 1996. Rep. Wilson, while Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, managed to cover up the incident involving the16-year old boy and her husband. And in what amounts to further chutzpah on the part of the House GOP, Wilson served on the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children under its one-time chairman, Mark Foley.

However, caucuses and boards devoted to exploited children, as well as other seemingly "youth development and protection" organizations, have been used by the GOP and Religious Right to mask a pedophile and pederasty agenda.

Wilson is not the only member of the House Page Board who has been covering up for the pederasts who have served on it. Rep. Sue Kelly of New York was Chairwoman of the Board from 1999 to 2001, along with former Chair (who Kelly succeeded) Jim Kolbe of Arizona. Kolbe is under investigation by both the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department for alleged inappropriate contact with two male pages during a July 4, 1996 camping trip to the Grand Canyon. Under Kelly's Page Board chairmanship, a page approached Kolbe in 2000 with allegations concerning Foley. Nothing was done in what was a close election year.

Neither did Kelly investigate allegations from a page in 1999 that Foley was stalking him and another incident in 2000 when Foley showed up at the Page dormitory in a drunken state and tried to gain entry.

Kelly, like Missouri Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, now want to make their past memberships of the House Page Board simply disappear. Kelly even ran away from a televised debate with her Democratic opponent John Hall. And Emerson will not respond to her Democratic opponent, Veronica Hambacker, about why Emerson lied when she said she was never a member of the House Page Board. Emerson was a member during Session 1 of the 106th Congress, during the time of allegations against Foley and three years after the incident involving her then Board chairman, Kolbe.

In addition, to past and current Page Board members Wilson, Kelly, and Emerson, other GOP members of the House and Senate are embroiled in the sex scandal. WMR has learned that the GOP for a number of years has used pipelines like the House and Senate page systems, political indoctrination organizations like the College Republicans, juvenile "diversion programs," and religious-connected political groups like to groom young men for the predatory sexual appetites of older male GOP members of Congress. The Pennsylvania College Republicans, founded by current Rep. Phil English with the support of current Sen. Rick Santorum, appears to be one such "recruitment" center.

GOP recruits underage male and female sex partners beyond the congressional page programs.

But it is not just young men who are groomed by the GOP predators. Republican Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois, who is married to the daughter of Guatemalan ex-dictator (and fundamentalist Christian) Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, is rumored to have conducted an illicit affair with a 16-year old female page. This comes at a time when the United States and John Bolton, a supporter of Rios Montt, are attempting to sway the United Nations into electing Guatemala to the UN Security Council. Former CIA officials, well aware of the human rights abuses by past and current members of Guatemala's oligarchy, have leaked information on Weller, former CIA Director Porter Goss, and others to point out that the agency, as far back as the 1960s when Goss served as a Latin American CIA agent, routinely used Mexican and Guatemalan female teens to entrap U.S. and foreign political figures. The "outing" of right-wing Republican Weller, the son-in-law of Rios Montt and champion of Guatemala's oligarchy, as a predator, is no coincidence. It is meant to shine a light on this old blackmail network during a time when Goss' name and those of jailed Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, Brant "Nine Fingers" Bassett, and ADCS contractor Brent Wilkes have arisen again during a House Intelligence Committee investigation of Shirlington Limousine and the transport of young prostitutes of both sexes to "poker parties" at the Watergate and Westin Hotels in Washington, DC. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoesktra, Goss's replacement, seems more interested in covering up this scandal than in discovering the truth.

WMR has been informed of a major scandal in this respect concerning the GOP candidate for Governor of Florida. We have learned that Florida GOP politicians have targeted underage male employees of theme parks in the Orlando/Kissimmee area for long-term sexual relationships. This story is developing.

It depends on the officer. I wouldn't follow Lt. General Boykin to a convenience store. Secretary Powell's mistake was allowing himself and his impressive military credentials to be used.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Admiral Sestak or General Clark. I do know that in addition to being a four-star general and the equivalent of Head of State when he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, General Clark was a Rhodes Scholar, a Ford Fellow at the White House (in economics), speaks four languages and has enormous credibility abroad.

Evaluate the militar officer based on his or her individual credentials, then decide. Isn't that what we do with elected officials?

Aloha: This remark may give voters food for thought. I heard and saw Senator McCain's interviwe with Catie Couric, in almost the final question, she asked him what about how they could stop the impass in Congress or words to that effect. His reponse and I quote. "Maybe its time to listen to the people and voters" I always thought they should listen to us anyway, after all we pay their bills and how??? Check out where Duke Cunningham is now. Just a few thoughts on my military and politics. Vrspy Buzz Baer Major USMC Ret. 21 years duty, three tours in Viet Nam in Naval Communications, Communications and Logistics. Holualoa Hi

"Can a retired general officer then, after 30 years of duty and shall we say, indoctrination in a particular service, rise above their service's interests to consider the national interest? Yes, I suppose it's possible."

"Can a retired general officer then, after 30 years of duty and shall we say, indoctrination in a particular service, rise above their service's interests to consider the national interest? Yes, I suppose it's possible."

Not only possible, but probable. And real. Why would a man, retiring from a military career after 30 years of duty to his country, offered every opportunity to move into the private sector and amass great amounts of money - why put that aside and continue to stand up and speak out, continuing on the path of service?

Perhaps it's what drove them to persue a career in the military in the first place - and that IS the consideration of national interest. What one might call 'love of country.'

And that's not just 'love of my military branc.' But all of us and how it all works together. Wes Clark (and there's no 'e' on the end of that - I checked) understands and has stated repeatedly that military force is only used as a last, last, last resort and has been standing up and calling for diplomatic solutions. Beyond that, in his career he was responsible for the well-being of thousands of troops - and their families. Their childrens education, their access to good healthcare and housing. If you would imply that this military man has only fighting on his mind, then you have missed the whole picture.

"Can a retired general officer then, after 30 years of duty and shall we say, indoctrination in a particular service, rise above their service's interests to consider the national interest? Yes, I suppose it's possible."

Not only possible, but probable. And real. Why would a man, retiring from a military career after 30 years of duty to his country, offered every opportunity to move into the private sector and amass great amounts of money - why put that aside and continue to stand up and speak out, continuing on the path of service?

Perhaps it's what drove them to persue a career in the military in the first place - and that IS the consideration of national interest. What one might call 'love of country.'

And that's not just 'love of my military branc.' But all of us and how it all works together. Wes Clark (and there's no 'e' on the end of that - I checked) understands and has stated repeatedly that military force is only used as a last, last, last resort and has been standing up and calling for diplomatic solutions. Beyond that, in his career he was responsible for the well-being of thousands of troops - and their families. Their childrens education, their access to good healthcare and housing. If you would imply that this military man has only fighting on his mind, then you have missed the whole picture.

"Can a retired general officer then, after 30 years of duty and shall we say, indoctrination in a particular service, rise above their service's interests to consider the national interest? Yes, I suppose it's possible."

Not only possible, but probable. And real. Why would a man, retiring from a military career after 30 years of duty to his country, offered every opportunity to move into the private sector and amass great amounts of money - why put that aside and continue to stand up and speak out, continuing on the path of service?

Perhaps it's what drove them to persue a career in the military in the first place - and that IS the consideration of national interest. What one might call 'love of country.'

And that's not just 'love of my military branc.' But all of us and how it all works together. Wes Clark (and there's no 'e' on the end of that - I checked) understands and has stated repeatedly that military force is only used as a last, last, last resort and has been standing up and calling for diplomatic solutions. Beyond that, in his career he was responsible for the well-being of thousands of troops - and their families. Their childrens education, their access to good healthcare and housing. If you would imply that this military man has only fighting on his mind, then you have missed the whole picture.

The idea that a military man will always propose military solutions to problems shows an ignorance of Wesley Clark's main mantra.

Clark (who opposed the Iraq war) says the solution to the mess created there has to be political, not military. The very thing that's driven him into politics is the Bush administration's misuse of the military -- trying to make it solve problems with force that need diplomacy and smart policy.

In his book "Winning Modern War" he puts forward the suggestion that the US needs to divert some of the money it's spending on weapons systems to initiatives that solve international problems before they reach the stage where violence erupts.

What attracted me to Clark as a potential president is that he knows precisely what the military can't do. And he is not a friend of the military industrial complex.

He has progressive domestic policies as well.

I'm old enough to have lived through eight years of Dwight Eisenhower. He made it look easy, to run this country more smoothly than it has ever been run since. It actually isn't easy, and underneath his rural Kansas exterior he was a brilliant and perceptive manager and politician. He was very un-partisan, and probebly he could have been the Democratic nominee for President if he had chosen that route instead of being a Republican. He did notably believe in 'overwhelming force' -- for instance, when the State of Arkansas defied the Federal government about school integration, he sent in enough force that the diehard segregationists had to fold without a destructive battle. "You can't jump halfway across a ditch."

First Bush, now Rumsfeld...Wowie

------------------------------------------
Top US general says Rumsfeld is inspired by God Thu Oct 19, 3:35 PM ET

MIAMI (AFP) - The top US general defended the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God.

"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country," said Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumsfeld is "a man whose patriotism focus, energy, drive, is exceeded by no one else I know ... quite simply, he works harder than anybody else in our building," Pace said at a ceremony at the Southern Command (Southcom) in Miami.
...
------------------------------------------
www.yahoo.com

Bill
I think your last paragraph sums it up: "...that we have an abundance of military advisors and a preponderance of military solutions to every problem. What we need more of is civilian solutions."

Soldiers make bad political leaders not because of any lack of personal intelligence or sophistication, but because of indoctrination: the military mindset is too linear, "can-do" action-biased, non-nuanced to deal with complex political and social realities whether domestic or international. The Iraq failure is an obvious case in point. What a democracy needs, and the American political system rarely produces, is an intelligent civilian able to weigh professional military advice against civilian values and political objectives. A general who thinks he's a politician or a politician who thinks he's a general are equally to be despised. How to change the military mindset away from "overwhelming force" towards making it a more-effective, supple and sophisticated institution in dealing with terrorism, insurgency, peace-keeping and nation-building, is an urgent question.

Let me see, an ex-military man or a cheerleader... the two are not mutually exclusive?

And where would that leave the of late, being compromised and fondling over the Religious Right Senator John McCain? I watched Senator. McCain humiliate himself yesterday on the Chris Matthews show. He was the featured guest before a group of 2 or 3 thousand students at Iowa State University yesterday.

First John explained to the student assembly that George Bush has been doing an excellent job waging the Iraqi war. As I recall, there wasn't any applause following his comment. But that was not enough for John, he then asked how many of the students in the audience if called up to serve their country would, I would say that about 20 or 30 out of that massive audience stood up?

Still not satisfied John added, well I know that if we improved your educational opportunities/benefits ... that you would serve your country! Chris, after a commercial break asked for those devotees to stand up. I don't think anyone stood up at all then, poor John!

Factually, I feel that it should be a requirement, based on the poor performance of George Bush, for any future President to have some actual verifiable military experience. However, I would prefer a tempered veteran like Colin Powell over a war advocate. John McCain is already advocating war. Seeing how the United States simply cannot keep itself out of conflicts with other nations, we need someone who has had some previous experience of the kind that will temper his machinations; swift-boated John Kerry would fit the bill in this regard!

P.S. And what was John's last faux pas? A student said well since the war is so important and the government needs more service people, why is the government discriminating against gays?

It would be a mistake to have an ex-military at the forefront of our countries diplomatic point..... Until we are able to rid ourselves of the distain that the military complex has put onto this country.

The world at large currently views the US as a brute and dictatorial.

We first need statesmen, who are driven by their determination to better this country and not view their power as a deity bestowed upon them. The US needs citizens to regain control of the government and to rid ourselves of the current puppets that exist in congress and the white house.

I too have known and still know many that serve/served in the military. One thing is obvious however with career military servicemen/servicewomen: They are taught that in order to succeed politically, you must be willing to give up your conscience to further yourself and that you must be willing to 'play the game'. This is the 'way' of the military mind and these are the flaws that have led this country to where we are today.

The country/world needs leadership that views the citizens not with distain, but with an equality that they are willing to bestow upon themselves. We must retain our strength through conviction and determination as a people and not a 'quick-fix'. WE THE PEOPLE must be determined to lead; it is then that the government will follow.

There is NO room for the military in a democracy, but in the background, to be called upon BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

It is time that the good people of this country RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THEIR VOICES BE HEARD AND NOT TOLORATE AN INSUBORDINATE GOVERNEM ENT.

I can't agree that a "military man" would not be multi-dimensional enough to provide the leadership we so badly need. Clark is so much more than just a military man-he's lived a role of leadership his entire life. Our country has suffered a tremendous dearth of leadership in recent years and we'd do very well under his vision and guidance. In fact, it is leadership with a detailed knowledge of military and foreign affairs that we need most of all.

General Clark is EXACTLY what we need during these perilous times--someone who is very smart and an experienced foreign affairs leader who understands war as well as why it should always, always, always be a last resort. Had General Clark been elected President in 2004, my newly born grandbaby wouldn't have come into this world with a $200,000 debt on her head.

He's ready this time. We hope he decides to try again!!!

Well put, Bill. I, too, can't think of a general or admiral who emerged "purple" after their experiences at the most senior levels. Today, we need more DImE and less diMe to use the popular professional military vernacular. To paraphrase the Army Chief of Staff, Gen Schoomaker, "we have plenty of people that need killing or capturing but the real prize is not gained only through military means." The military joint team is but one part of the instruments of national power. Pundits like Ralph Peters should remember that the next time they take cheap shots at airpower or intelligence or the inadequacies of counterinsurgency doctrine.

'I'm just not so sure though that as a group, retired general officers should be seen as coherent representatives of all things "military" or as guardians of basic American values and thus as saviors of the nation.

In fact, I've never met a retired general officer who can rise above the institutional interests of his former service -- Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.'

Of course, you can't have it both ways: 'As a group . . . representatives/guardians,' and never met officer 'who can rise above institutional interests . . . .'

In either event, I strongly suggest that you and your readers spend some time studying General Clark's military life AND his life as a student, teacher, leader, businessman, and advocate. He is an extraordinary individual, and must not be overlooked because of generalizations (no pun intended).

'I'm just not so sure though that as a group, retired general officers should be seen as coherent representatives of all things "military" or as guardians of basic American values and thus as saviors of the nation.

In fact, I've never met a retired general officer who can rise above the institutional interests of his former service -- Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.'

Of course, you can't have it both ways: 'As a group . . . representatives/guardians,' and never met officer 'who can rise above institutional interests . . . .'

In either event, I strongly suggest that you and your readers spend some time studying General Clark's military life AND his life as a student, teacher, leader, businessman, and advocate. He is an extraordinary individual, and must not be overlooked because of generalizations (no pun intended).

'I'm just not so sure though that as a group, retired general officers should be seen as coherent representatives of all things "military" or as guardians of basic American values and thus as saviors of the nation.

In fact, I've never met a retired general officer who can rise above the institutional interests of his former service -- Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.'

Of course, you can't have it both ways: 'As a group . . . representatives/guardians,' and never met officer 'who can rise above institutional interests . . . .'

In either event, I strongly suggest that you and your readers spend some time studying General Clark's military life AND his life as a student, teacher, leader, businessman, and advocate. He is an extraordinary individual, and must not be overlooked because of generalizations (no pun intended).

Both of these fine gentlemen are not 'only' military men, and they are well versed on domestic issues (as well as national security and international relations).

You'd think you'd at least spell Clark's name correctly.....

"The success of Sestak and Clarke (sic), ..."