Reply #100: Jesus, I can't believe you're going to make me defend the military. [View All]

But, here goes...

The U.S. and British combined forces in April 2003 were virtually unchallengeable.
So Clark's 'gee whiz' statement was actually a fact.

That is no longer the case.
Bush saw to that.
He destroyed the U.S. military's dominance by pushing it into doing something it was never meant to do.

It was meant to defeat armies. (when the right decisions are being made, armies of countries that actually threaten the United States)

The military was not made to occupy a country after an illegal invasion.

Clark knew enough to know this, as he stated in a 2002 Time op-ed.

"...we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. . . . After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building?"

I don't see how advising other countries to not challenge U.S./British forces, before the war even started, is the same as saying "bring 'em on" four months into the occupation.

Of course the military does have it's share of greedy and evil bastards. That's how shit like torture manuals get into the curriculum.

Clark was wrong in defending the School of the Americas and he should realize that and admit it publicly.