ClarkCast Alert: Integrity and Dissent
April 17, 2006
transcript by Reg NYC

Well, hello everyone. This is Wes Clark, and I want to talk about the Generals who are speaking out, calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. I've known most of these people for a very long time. I served as a contemporary of Tony Zinni's. He was a Three-Star working in CENTCOM when I was the J-5. I helped plan one of his operations. I was there when he executed that operation to get our forces safely out of Somalia in 1995. And he did a good job on that as the, I think he was the Deputy in CENTCOM at the time. I of course know John Batiste. He worked for me as a One-Star.

He was down in Italy when I was up in NATO Headquarters. He did a lot of the ground force planning and work in preparation for the eventual options surrounding Kosovo. And he's another fine officer. Chuck Swannack I've known for a long time. If I recall correctly, I watched him move through the ranks. I think I met him one time in a battle command training program exercise when he was something like a major and I was about to make Brigadier General. I don't know Greg Newbold, the Marine, but these are all solid people. They're all non-political people. They've all spoken out, because they're concerned about the direction of the national security choices the country's making. They believe that one way or another, somehow that the military's influence, the common sense that comes having boots on the ground working with the troops, somehow that common sense hasn't percolated its way up the chain of command. And they're speaking out about it because the results of the operations in Iraq haven't lived up to the cakewalk billing that the administration predicted.

They don't speak out easily about matters like this, not a one of them. These are people who are speaking out with reluctance. They're speaking out only after they've searched their conscience. They're speaking out with the knowledge that they're accountable for their own opinions. They're speaking out with a great deal of trepidation, because they know that they'll be attacked. And worse than that, in the military loyalty's a very, very strong attribute. People stay with the Armed Forces because they believe in their country, but also because they're loyal to their comrades in arms. And when they have differences of opinion, they do their best to resolve them without ego. This is an organization, The United States Armed Forces, where people enter as young men and women and stay with it their entire adult lives, and all of these people who are speaking out have spent thirty years or more in uniform serving the country. So, these are not people who are self-seeking. They're not doing it for ulterior motives. They're doing it because they believe in it.

John Riggs, one of the officers who spoke out, I've known him since he was a Colonel in the Army Staff. He was handling force modernization, and he spoke out very strongly in the Internal Affairs in the Pentagon advocating a greater capability for the nation's ground forces. I think Johnny knew that if we have high-tech airpower it goes a long way, but when you get into the post-conflict operations it takes a lot of troops, and they have to be very well-equipped troops to do the job that the nation expects of them. He stood up for what he believed in. He wasn't promoted past Three-Stars, but I think that he felt that some improper choices were made. John Batiste commanded the division on the ground in Iraq. I think that each one of these people has their own experiences to fall back on and they've drawn conclusions about the overall results, and they're speaking out. And I think that we should welcome that. It's not a matter of whether people agree with what they say or not, but these are professionals. They spent their lives studying a body of learning. They have lived it, and they have an obligation to speak out.

I know Dicky Myers, and I have the highest regard for General Myers, but when he says that there's something improper about it, I think he misunderstands the character of the society that we're defending. When you're in uniform, you give your advice in private, and if you don't like the decisions that are made, you're free to express your opinions and opt out. And you can always say, 'I quit. I resign. Reassign me.' And there's usually someone who's willing to take your job and do the job. When you're retired, you have the right to speak publicly. Indeed I would argue, you have an obligation to do so on matters that are sensitive national security matters where you have some expertise that the general public doesn't have.

So, I disagree with the idea that these retired Generals shouldn't be speaking out. They should, and I would welcome this discussion. I think all America should hear it. It doesn't mean they're necessarily right in everything they say, but I strongly support their right to be heard.

And I would just say one more thing. The principle of accountability is deeply ingrained in the military chain of command. It starts at the bottom. If you're a soldier and you don't do PT, you're accountable for that. If you're a captain and your mission is not accomplished, you're held accountable for that. If you're a battalion commander and you can't get your organization in shape, you're held accountable for that. Why should it be any different at the top level of the national command authority? Why shouldn't the people at the top of the chain of command be held accountable in the same manner that people are held accountable elsewhere?

The truth is that a lot of promises were made before we went into Iraq, and behind those promises was some hyped intelligence, some flawed assumptions, a failure to see the obvious and a burning desire on the part of some people to take the country to war. Some in the military believed that this was a good idea. Some in the military believed that it wasn't such a good idea, but they trusted their leaders to make the right decisions. They said, 'I don't have all the facts.' They may have said, 'I wouldn't do it if I were in his position, but he's the President. What he's doing makes a certain degree of sense,' maybe. I don't know. I don't want to put words in their mouth, because I wasn't in the uniform, but I know its a very hard thing when you're in uniform to try to understand the motives and the basis for the decisions that are made several levels above your head.

I have no doubt that what Dicky Myers says is right that Secretary Rumsfeld had many conversations with the Joint Chiefs and with Tommy Franks and with other officers about the plan. And yet, I don't think he heard them. He got the results that he wanted, by and large, by pushing down the size of the troops, by eliminating planning for a difficult post-conflict operation, by denying it when it came about that we had an insurgency. He wanted to shape events the way he wanted to shape them. Don Rumsfeld is a very smart and powerful guy, but his judgment was wrong. And ultimately if we don't hold people in positions of authority accountable for bad judgment, then how can we turn to these young leaders in the United States Armed Forces and hold them accountable for the judgments they make at their level? If accountability's the principle, it applies from the bottom to the top of the chain of command.

And so I welcome the fact that these Generals have had the courage to speak out. I spoke out in 2003. I ran for office, because I believed then that the decisions were wrong. Now more and more people are seeing it. More and more people are speaking out. I welcome it. I think this country's on a road to nowhere under the leadership of President George Bush, and I'm incredibly encouraged that many others who have served in the United States Armed Forces with me see it also, because maybe we'll get through to the American people. This administration has to be changed. We've got to get America back on the right path for a secure future.

Thanks a lot. It's been great to be with you.