Wes Clark for Secretary of State
Obviously the Obama transition team isn't taking advice from some random blogger on TPM, but if they did, I'd like to raise my one cabinet recommendation: General Wesley Clark would make a brilliant choice for Secretary of State.
There's three reasons why I think he'd be an excellent choice, and a couple reasons why (unfortunately) I'm not hopeful he'll be named.
The first reason for recommending him is that he's crazy smart. The position of Secretary of State requires an incredible amount of intelligence and focus. He or she is responsible for implementing the President's foreign policy agenda and maintaining America's diplomatic relationships with other nations, whether they be friendly or hostile. It takes an absurd amount of knowledge and the sort of mentality that can stay on top of the shifting sands of global politics. Wesley Clark, a Rhodes Scholar (like Bill Clinton), has always impressed me with some very penetrating analysis of any situation he's been asked to provide commentary on. This interview during the Georgia crisis illustrates the sort of deep thinking Clark could bring to the State Department:
Tom Foreman: Let me start off by asking you a basic question: For all of the concerns about Georgia, for all of the saber-rattling right now - you've been there and you've done that - how worried should we be about the relations between the U.S. and Russia right now?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we should be very concerned and it's not just the U.S. and Russia. This is really about NATO. It's about the U.S. leadership role in Europe and how European countries respond to the United States. So, we need to be focusing on not just a U.S. - Russia bilateral relationship, but we need to be focusing on Transatlantic unity in- and using that Transatlantic unity to shape the behavior of Russia. That's one of the areas in which I think the administration has frankly not been as effective in the last seven years as it could've been, because there's been a lot of emphasis on U.S. unilateral relations with Russia and elsewhere and not enough emphasis on Transatlantic unity.
The second reason is that the Secretary of State is the President's principal diplomatic lieutenant, which means firsthand experience in active diplomacy is vital. While Clark served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, he not only commanded the military action in Kosovo, he was also deeply involved in negotiations with Slobodan Milosevic in order to bring the Balkan War to a close, and end the ethnic cleansing that was devastating the region. This sort of first-hand experience engaging in high-stakes diplomacy with our enemies is even more vital now than ever before. Dealing with Iran, North Korea and other countries is about as challenging an assignment as anyone could ever be tasked with, and we need a someone with a respected track record to helm those efforts.
Finally, the man is simply a workaholic. This is vital. In my opinion, there's one job in the Executive Branch harder than the presidency, and that's Secretary of State. Madeline Albright's excellent memoir "Madame Secretary" opened my eyes to the nonstop whirlwind of the State Department. Clark has a history of the sort of obsessive work ethic required for this job.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen his name mentioned much when discussing Secretary of State, and that's a real shame. I've also noticed that he's been largely under utilized by the Obama campaign, signaling to me that he isn't part of the top tier of Obama advisors, and it's that circle that I'd expect to see Secretary of State come from. It doesn't help that Clark comes from the Clinton world (in fact, I'm pretty sure that the Clintons asked him not to run for President this election, which explains a couple of early moves that appeared to be campaign-ish that never materialized). I sure hope I'm wrong. I certainly hope that the calculus given to choosing a Secretary of State doesn't over-emphasize the political message that would be sent. In other words, someone like Republican Chuck Hagel, who is admittedly quite qualified himself to be Secretary of State, would also send a message that Obama is serious about building a bipartisan administration. That's an important message to send and an important attitude to embrace, but for this particular post, it doesn't trump qualification.
If it does, however, I'd also like to mention that Clark would make an excellent ambassador to the U.N.
Advertisement
Wesley Clark was my first choice for President in 2008, and I agree that he would make a great Secretary of State.
In Kosovo, during Clark's campaign to end ethnic cleansing, he had to get the approval of every one of the 19 member nations of NATO every time an airplane went down the runway..
Every target had to be approved by 19 separate nations with absolutely no common agenda!
The Greeks were friends of the Serbs, the Italians were terrified of a flood of refugees, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the new kids on the block, kept asking "What is word for elbow? What is word for ass?"
This was a fantastically difficult undertaking, and it saved tens of thousands of lives, but...
When was the last time any such thing was counted as qualification for a job in Washington?
November 8, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harharharhar! Dude. I'm a big Wes-man & certainly prefer him to any of the Rep'n contenders. He's smart, patient, articulate, straight-talking, determined & not in love with war. That list would normally make me cynical about his chances, but... hope! HOPE! Springing eternal from the breast of this Common Loon.
However, while you accept that Clark often had to bow to the idiocies of 19 nations, so as to EVENTUALLY get something done... why do you stomp so hard on the Harhar pedal when Dem Senators do the equivalent, bowing to National mania & media madness, choosing to eat some shit votes, but at least a few of them with an eye to a day like.... today... when they might get THEIR good goals achieved? In short, why accept diplomatic compromises (which often lead to the loss of innocents), and attribute good will to a Clark... yet no such slack in electoral politics?
November 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analogy between Clark and the Democrats would be valid if Clark had sacrificed every conceivable principle to make himself Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Instead, he sacrificed his career to save tens of thousands of lives.
November 8, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon dude, you're pushing to an extreme quit/stay decision, when you know darned well that every day Clark was managing that thing, he had to make life/death decisions for people on the ground. And that he had a long military career, during which a lot of such decisions were made.
I'm just saying, we both know electoral politics is a nasty sport. Basically, you hang in as long as you can, eat extraordinary amounts of dirt, and often, your constituents, your party, the national media or national mood, means you cannot do what you feel is right. It's why most of us aren't suited to the damn thing.
But look at Clark in that link below, praising the man you distrust immensely. Why is he doing it? Well... I suspect he thinks in many ways Obama is fine; has questions & misgivings on other parts; has his own ego somewhat engaged; and also has a solid desire to continue public service & to do good. In short, I can't judge politicians 100%/0% anymore. I'd give Clark a mixed score, and Obama as well.
And don't snark back with a 99/1 vs 1/99 score either! (This being the 'quinn doctrine' of attempting to pre-empt snarl attacks.) ;-)
November 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had high hopes for Wes Clark after he was on the left side of Obama(pretty important stuff) during a National Security meeting. However, after that fake uproar he was never seen again (only a brief stint at the convention). He is an incredibly capable human being who I truly hope has some place in an Obama administration.
November 8, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gen. Clark was an excellent officer. I don't know if he would make a great Sec of State but I do think that he would be great as Sec of Defense or something comparable.
I worked in Kosovo as an DIA interpreter soon after the conflict ended and Clark was very well-respected by many including Americans and Kosovars.
November 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark should have SOME role in the Obama administration at least. He is to apt of a mind to not make use of.
November 8, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait, Wesley Clark was JUST campaigning with Barack Obama in Pueblo Colorado on the 1st of November. That is definitely good to hear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvQ1GrEWjzY
November 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to see Clark as SoS. But the question may be whether or not he will accept a position on the Obama team if it is offered. I thought one of the few real gaffes Plouffe and co. committed during the campaign was to immediately distance themselves from Clarke's candid remarks. Perhaps his support of Obama at a Colorado rally is evidence that he is now, as always, the consummate professional we think him to be.
Chuck Hagel is a good man; let him head Defense. Send Wesley Clark as our emissary to the world at large.
November 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark has actually campaigned for Obama all over the nation, mostly in VA.
November 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having a military man as Sec'y of State sends the wrong message, imo. I would like to see Clark at Defense, though.
November 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colin Powell ring a bell?
November 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. An alarm bell.
November 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gen. Clark came here to Pensacola and spoke to the Veterans for Obama group. Someone in the audience asked him if he would accept a position in Obama's cabinet, and he said he couldn't because it had not been long enough since he officially retired from the Military. I, of course, do not know just what the rules are. He may have just said that to quiet speculation. He would be a perfect choice just about anywhere, and he is a calm, brilliant and kind man who would fit in with Obama seamlessly.
November 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it has to be 10 years before you can. There has to be a reason for that rule because it sounds horrible.
November 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark also showed up on some of the shows like Morning Joe - I assume with blessing of the campaign - later on in the campaign. The Obama campaign didn't "jettison" people who misspoke to the point of causing trouble -- Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, Gen. Clark. It just took them from sight and then later without fanfare brought them back. I don't think it was punishment as such so much as keeping firmly in step with the "no drama" mantra and removing the trivial distractions. (In contrast, Wright was clearly 'jettisoned') While I'm sure those removed from the stagelights didn't enjoy it, it's possible that they would prefer that if that was part of the overall strategy that, in fact, worked!!
But what is this about 10 years after official retirement from the military? Had Colin Powell been out that long when he was made Sec of State? Does this mean that Clark can't take appointive office but he could have been elected President? Very confused.
I'm not sure Sec. of State would be the best place for him. I see him as sort of like Joe Biden (who I adore!!) - very smart and very truthful even when it isn't particularly politic to be so. I'd always been against Biden becoming Secy of State because it would limit one of his chief and most unique strengths: being able to state blunt truths. Clark does the same also, and it IS a strength, just not a suitable one for all positions.
I also hope there is a place for him and that there isn't some rule that would prevent it.
November 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I wondered about this 10 years thing too. Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1993 and was made Secretary of State in January, 2001, so this rule doesn't seem to have applied (and he was National Security Advisor before that (in fact, he was promoted to General while serving as NSA, or immediately thereafter).
Additionally, Clark has run for President, it seems odd that he'd be allowed to run for President before he'd be allowed to hold a cabinet post. I wonder if this is just a convention or if it's a serious rule. If it's a convention, then he retired in 2000, which means he'd have been out of the military for 8-9 years rather than 10 years, which is close enough as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see some documentation on this particular rule.
November 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it seems odd that he'd be allowed to run for President before he'd be allowed to hold a cabinet post."
You gotta be kidding! Shirley U R!
November 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "10 years" bit is a misunderstanding of statutory requirements for the Secretary of Defense. See 10 USC §113(a):
November 8, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So he even knows what position HE would want to be up for, SecDef.........just like I said.
November 8, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Big Bill" Richardson !
Not only is he known to be a real hardass behind the scenes in La Politica, when asked recently on MSNBC why he was so effective with all those "bad guys" around the planet, he smiled evily and said "it's because they like me".
Richardson has a different kind of handson experience that counts. Don't be seduced by his public persona.
November 8, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! What would happen to NAFTA is Richardson was SecState? how could our relations with Mexico and south change if someone who spoke their language could understand them?
I love Clark. He should get something. maybe Sec of Defense in 2012?!?
November 9, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama is talking about keeping Gates on for the short term. Maybe until May 2010, at which point Clark could take over.
Not sure how likely such an outcome would be, but it'd be a reasonable way of dealing with the 10-year-out limitation.
November 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
Obviously the Obama transition team isn't taking advice from some random blogger on TPM, but if they did, I'd like to raise my one cabinet recommendation!
I second this nomination. I have blogged the merits of this elite statesman, Wesley Clark, seemingly into oblivion.
Barack Obama will be making a statement is he turns his back on Wesley Clark. If he does, this will not be the first of Mr. O's statements I will not agree with.
November 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink