previous post next post  

The Prince of Darkness.

By Dusty (AKA Attila of Argghhh!) on October 4, 2007 | | Comments (5)

[Note - Dusty put this in the H&I late yesterday, and it clearly deserves it's own post, so I did that. -the Armorer]

Jason puts the crosshairs on my favorite retired 4-star.

Thoughts:

Having seen Wes' conduct of the war in Kosovo (as the senior USAF officer attached to V Corps in Albania) up close, the Shelton characterization didn't surprise me.

For the blue suiters, especially the planners in the CAOC at Vicenza, there seemed to be great deal of pressure to introduce an Army aviation unit into the conflict when the latter clearly wasn't ready and their contribution would have had little effect on the fight. The same thing was happening, sort of, with the Corps' MLRS batteries.

That's not to say the Apaches and their crews weren't capable...it just didn't make sense to roll them into the equation given the ROE limitations, the targets, the intel available and the AH-64's capabilities and vulnerabilities. Again, the 11 AVN Rgmt is chock full of great Americans, with balls the size of pickle jars, flying awesome aircraft but sometimes you gotta square peg and a round hole and it doesn't pay to needlessly pound away--it wastes assets and can really screw things up.

Personal opinion: The pressure from Wes to do so was palpable...and the Army staff resisted, and resented, it. Clark's demanor/attitude, and what seemed to be a nakedly partisan and opportunistic attempt to showcase the Army in an ongoing air battle got him in trouble. My gut tells me Clinton rightfully saw the hazards in that and responded. Trying his damnedest to inject Army combat units into what was a pure air war (for good or bad--different discussion), Wes made himself a pain in the ass, exceeded Bill's personal and political pain threshold and the rest is history.

All that said, the shortcomings we saw in capabilities less than a decade ago have been extensively addressed in today's ops. Say what you will about the political dimensions of the Iraq campaign, the corporate memory being built there across all three services, and the associated improvements in all services' equipment, tactics, techniques and procedures, will stand us in good stead for a long time to come.

[As someone who was involved in this from a different perspective - let me just echo the Instapilot's view here. But I admit, I've not been a fan of he POD since I first worked with him at the National Training Center, back in the '80s. Now to see if this post will pull in the one guy who pops in to support the POD when we bash him in these pages! 8^ ) -the Armorer]

Share This Article:

Categories:

5 Comments

By fdcol63 on October 4, 2007 7:57 AM
Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton make my skin crawl so much that I'm tempted to believe whackjob David Icke's contention that the Rhodes Scholar program is a "front" operation run by reptile aliens to develop evil world leaders. LOL
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on October 4, 2007 3:20 PM
From the PuffH link: "Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony."" I think Gen Clark thus places Gen Clark in the group of "phonies", which I think suits him well. Cheers
 
By BillT on October 4, 2007 7:24 PM
...a great deal of pressure to introduce an Army aviation unit into the conflict when the latter clearly wasn't ready and their contribution would have had little effect on the fight. Nail. Head. Every Attack Helicopter outfit in the Army was wondering *why* send Apaches someplace they won't be able to use Hellfires? Hint: without breaking OPSEC, it has to do with terrain and weather, and anybody who's got a Balkan rotation under his (or her) belt is One Who Knows.
 
By jim b on October 4, 2007 8:17 PM
From the Tom Delay site, remember when Wes was running for president cause he wanted adulation? MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Hardball, Dec 9, 2003... MATTHEWS: Did Bill Clinton agree in your policy? CLARK: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: Why did he relieve you? CLARK: First of all, I wasn’t relieved. MATTHEWS: You weren’t? CLARK: No. Uh-uh. MATTHEWS: You weren’t relieved as supreme commander as NATO. CLARK: No, I wasn’t. No. I was asked to retire three months early. MATTHEWS: How is that different? CLARK: Because, the way it works... MATTHEWS: But you weren’t fired? CLARK: No. MATTHEWS: Well, it sounds like it. You were told to leave. GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, U.S. ARMY (RET.): He was fired because of matters of character and integrity. That is a very, very damning statement which says if that’s the case he’s not the right man for president as far as I’m concerned.
 
By BillT on October 4, 2007 8:26 PM
Now to see if this post will pull in the one guy who pops in to support the POD when we bash him in these pages! Nope. Looks like he's too busy doing damage control -- anonymously -- over at Jason's house.