There is truth to the American inaction on Rwanda and I believe both Clinton and Albright have admitted huge regrets on the subject. But the major failure was on the part of the UN. There is a book called "Shake Hands with the Devil" by the UN commander in Rwanda at the time. He saw what was coming, warned about it and begged for reinforcements. Kofi Anan was in charge of UN forces at the time and refused to get further involved. The UN was already on the ground - they had primary responsibility to act.
4
Perhaps the Republicans and the Trump Administration should get this lecture. They are committing freedom atrocities to Americans every day. Taking away Voting Rights, a Woman's right to Choose, trying to do away with our Social Safety nets, such as Medicare, the ACA, Social Security, Food Stamps, CHIP and WIC.
Also allowing abuse of children that they have locked away in cages, separating these children from their parents as they try to get Asylum from the murderous countries they are trying to escape.
Meaningful Gun Reform and Tax Reform.
The Republicans confirmed Cabinet members over and over again, despite that these same members lied at their Confirmation Hearings, think Barr or were incompetent, think Betsy deVos and Ben Carson. Most have used their Cabinet positions to line their pockets at the expense of the American public, fly to vacations on first class flights, etc. Mnuchin, Ross, anybody?
There is not moral courage any more from most of Leaders in D.C,
And now Pompeo and Bolton, along with Trump trying to get us to attack Iran. Just what we need, another war we won't in and should not start to begin with.
We need to change course in this country immediately. There should be a full court press and more protests and marching to insist Trump is Impeached, along with Barr, Mitchell and any other Cabinet Member who has not acted in the best interest of the American public. That is what they all get paid for. And they have failed miserably
6
General Clark, I am not quite sure why you wrote this article. If you are looking for something "good" to come out if the trump administration you will continue to be disappointed. Trump does not have a moral center, he is the center of his own universe and he has millions of Americans backing him. Welcome to the new America, no longer the home of the free and the brave and the moral.
7
As a supervisor of elections in Bosnia under the OSCE pursuant to the Dayton Peace Accords, I was able to recognize their value firsthand. Although Dayton came too late to stop the massacre of Srebrenica, the ruins of Mostar and so much death and destruction perpetrated throughout Bosnia by Bosnian Serb and Serbian forces, elections were held without violence, and finally a father could walk with his son on his shoulders on a peaceful Sunday in Sarajevo without being shot at by Serb forces in the hills above. Thanks so much are due to General Clark and the much-missed Richard Holbrooke for their contributions to this peace.
19
Whose morality?
Who are you to judge?
That's where we are as a society now Mr. Clark.
This is not a Culture of Honor we live in.
It's a Culture of Dignity.
If you have your dignity questioned, a quick tweet on Twitter will bring 1000 people to a protest to defend you...even if you're morally wrong.
And worse? The media eats this stuff up.
We're just the pawns in a big game of chess.
1
"What Happens When Our Leaders Lack Moral Courage"
That's a rhetorical question, right? One only needs to look around--to see what a mess Donald J Trump is making--to see what happens.
5
Absent an objective examination of how the decisions of previous administrations are reflected in America’s current involvement in international affairs, General Clark’s “opinion” is little more than a rhetorical exercise.
1
How odd that this piece does not point out the moral vacuum in the White House right now. Talk about pulling punches!
6
"What Happens When Our Leaders Lack Moral Courage"
They become elected officials??
5
“Do you really think Congress would authorize 20,000 troops and $2 billion in the heart of Africa cc. 1994?” Not if there are no natural resources to exploit or political advantage. The Balkans were a natural gateway to our main adversary, the disintegrating Soviet Union, and it still tooks years of hmming and hawing. The result was the Chinese and Russian build-ups Clark mentions, not to mention a spike in birth rates from mass rapes. Now that China is making huge inroads into the African continent, I would be a little surprised if we took a pass on "protecting our interests" in Africa now should another Rwanda occur. We can hope that we use our power for the good of humanity.
But Gen. Clark is is worried - the moral compass is spinning as through there were no true north.
2
So.... Invade Iran? That's the subtext, right? That's why you are writing this article now as opposed over the last 20 years.
The counterpoint to Gen. Clark's admonishmen is the "Shoot first - ask questions later" mentality got us into two unnecessary wars that we haven't been able to extricate ourselves after nearly two decades.
1
Sounds like Mike Pompeo has forgotten these words, or just added them to his pile of broken oaths.
2
Our failure to stop the Rwandan genocide was the lowest point in a presidency full of low points. I will never forget the shame I felt when it was revealed that President Clinton had ordered his staff and State Department to never use the word "genocide", because that word was so inflammatory that its use might have forced Clinton to actually "do" something about it.
3
What happens when our government lacks moral courage? Well we end up with Trump, McConnell, Nunes, Miller, Barr and other unscrupulous individuals with their hands in our pockets and Democracy gone out the door. And that is the state of the USA now.
Thank God for freedom of the press and the NYT. They are our saviors from these traitors.
5
What about the time a ship carrying Jews escaping the Holocaust were turned away from our shores by the Roosevelt administration?
3
Clarke is to be applauded for sharing his thoughts and experiences from difficult times. Taking the moral high-ground is tricky if we can't define morality to everyone's satisfaction. Every officer needs a cut-off point where s/he decides not to follow an order that crosses into perceived immorality. When soldiers, and their officers, are used to enforce questionable immigration laws, how do they decide that their orders have a moral basis? When recruits flocked to the banner to fight in Iraq, was it their duty to accept the administration's rationale for war without question?
3
Real moral courage would be Mitch McConnell stating that he cannot support Donald J. Trump as president any longer. Real moral courage would have been the Senate initiating an investigation into Trump as soon as they knew he'd fired James Comey for no real reason. Pompeo went to West Point. He knows your prayer. Where's his courage as Secretary of State? Probably in his back pocket.
Most of our politicians today lack any sort of courage. They jump onto the same bandwagon. They refuse to confront difficult issues that concern Americans, other countries in relation to America, and worst of all, they refuse to work together for all of us. They are too afraid to look at each other. This country is heading for another Civil War. We can no longer claim any mantle of leadership on anything except our failures to lead. We elected a president who is a know nothing about government, politics, foreign policy and domestic policy.
At this point we couldn't even fight our way out of a paper bag much less decide to interfere or not in the Balkans or any other place in the world. Moral courage begins at home. It's too bad our leaders lack the courage to demand that Trump and the current administration either do their jobs or leave and let the adults in the room accomplish something for the good of all.
5/23/2019 8:28pm
10
"Endow us with courage ... that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice..."
I once admired the aspiration in prayers like this.
Today it didn't take long to recall the compromises we made with the injustices of our drone war in the Mideast, much less the other injustices we perpetrated upon Viet Nam.
How do these students of the history of war bring themselves to say such a prayer?
4
How many examples can we call out right at this moment, where the US government is running perfectly counter to the moral code that General Clark shares? Why don't we create a comprehensive migration system? Why don't we take action to protect Americans from gun violence? Why don't we treat climate change as the biggest threat we must face this century? Is it that our elected officials....a) sincerely don't care about these issues, b) are paid not to care, c) are more worried about their reelection campaigns than the challenges they have been elected to address, or d) truly believe they are taking the right course of action? My sense is it's "a", "b", and "c". If you believe "d", think about the tax cut package. After years of GOP rhetoric against budget deficits, they won the house, senate, and presidency, then proceeded with a tax package for the wealthy that explodes the deficit.
7
I happen to be an American citizen of Serbian origin who studies ethnic conflict in the region as well as in Russia/the former Soviet Union. I completely understand that horrible things were done in the name of the Serbian nation and I understand the reason for NATO bombing.
Nevertheless this piece is self serving and leaves out many complexities which general Clark is certainly aware of. For example, my brother fought for democracy in Serbia from the very beginning (1990) but found himself caught between bombing by his western allies and the local dictator: I expected him to die in 1999 but he survived luckily; the morality of bombing from unreachable heights is also questionable—what do you expect military officers on the ground to do—they will try to hurt those whom they can on the ground- in this case Albanians. Then he leaves out the fact that NATO was drawn into fighting a proxy war for an Albanian separatist movement that financed its arms with narcotics trafficking; not to speak of the fact that these same fighters are now self-serving politicians who 20 years later are still unable to make Kosovo into anything that resembles a viable society despite all western aid. In many ways Kosovo was much better off in socialist Yugoslavia than now, and I speak as someone who was opposed to the communist regime.
Perhaps Mr Clark should get off his high horse and consider the unintended consequences of his actions, not the least of which was to completely alienate Russia.
7
"Today, Kosovo is an independent nation."
That is a partial truth, and the lack in it tells much.
The ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs did stop. That was a good thing.
The ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Muslims did not stop, and has gone far.
Kosovo is not an independent nation. It is an American protectorate, existing only by American military power.
It uses that protected status to be the organized crime central of Europe, the center of human trafficking and drug trafficking. The US only enables that, by protecting the place while doing nothing about what is done under that protection.
Creating a new nation in Europe by outside military force that permits ethnic cleansing of one minority is not just a wrong, but pregnant with many future wrongs, some of which we've already seen birthed, and more likely coming.
The only way to mitigate that would have been a wide international agreement, but we didn't do that. There was no new equivalent of the Concert of Europe to agree on a new status quo.
Instead, we did it as a cram down, over Russian objections and by bombing the Chinese Embassy in a transparent "mistake." The resentments run deep, and are having lasting consequences. So too does the lawlessness of the near ungoverned Kosovo we protect.
7
Let’s begin by asking our leaders to have a semblance of morality and ethics to begin with. The courage can follow.
5
While these may be fine words, our current administration and all its supporting structure together with the rise of hate and misogyny prove to me that American values are more situational and feel good concepts than having any real foundational core. Aside from abstract concepts, I really have no idea what American values are any more.
4
I've never thought of Wesley K. Clark of having moral courage.
He knew enough to know that the US intended to do regime change in Syria since 2006. But he never said anything about the US role in instigating the horrendously devastating civil war in Syria. He went along with the charade of homegrown Syrian protesters being gunned down by Assad... and the evil regime...
Mostly, the US military produces physically brave, but not morally brave leaders. The military is designed to produce yes men [and woman], always eyeing their next promotion.
Many could know better than to think that military action can resolve anything in today's world. It just creates death, pain, destruction and lots more hate.
The Balkan issues were never resolved. Hate is flourishing and the area is a powder keg waiting for the fuse to be lit.
Perhaps humans have simply not evolved enough.
Madeleine Albright was understandably pained by the Rwanda genocide, though not upset enough to see that the radio signals, that urged the killing, were jammed.
She certainly showed no concern over the 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a result of US sanctions.
The US intention to be the lone superpower, regardless of cost, is not fertile ground for moral courage among its leaders or the military.
5
"At the time I served as the director for strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
He was in a key position to know we could do it, and his job was to submit plans to do it, and he did. Then we didn't do it.
Those are powerful words. It is exactly what we hope the NYT will bring us.
It was never made quite so clear before. Why not?
5
What happens when our leaders lack moral courage asks Mr. Clark. What happens when our leaders have no morals or integrity to start with such as Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, William Barr, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Steven Mnuchin, and many more Republicans in Congress who only care about power and it's certainly not acting for good.
5
You forfeit moral leadership when the pursuit of wealth and self-interest replaces it. That's what's happened over the past 40 years.
3
When I read the Cadets' pledge I thought this was an article
about the Republicans in Congress. I still think so.
2
Moral compromise seems to be made every single day by politicians, generally speaking. It jumps out at me having read "Shake Hands With the Devil", Canadian general Romeo Dallaire's first-person account of the Rwanda genocide (he was the UN commanding officer when the genocide began) that an intervention by any western government, US, France, Belgium or the UN with much fewer than the 20,000 troops and $2 billion would have stopped the genocide quickly. But politicians have to live with their decisions.
18
General Clark, I honor your service to our country but beg to differ with you regarding our role in the Balkans. Throughout our history, American policymakers have been consistently reluctant to condemn mass atrocities including genocide or to intervene militarily to stop them - Rwanda being a recent, tragic, example. In Bosnia, President Clinton, his National Security Council, and the UN Security Council muddled for four+ years before committing military assets to that bitter ugliness. Their lack of moral courage created the opportunity for Serb forces to undertake a strategy of “ethnic cleansing” that involved the murder, rape, expulsion and imprisonment of Muslims and Croats. Yes, ultimately, we engaged and ended those wars. However, we waited far too long.
20
@Thomas Keane I can't remember. Did Congress sign off on our war in the Balkans, or did Clinton go off by himself unilaterally and against the moral certitude and high ground he would carried with him had the Congress (and we the people) supported such action?
1
@Thomas Keane Hi Tom.....bottom line is we took action.....something that needs a cautious approach. I can't remember if Congress signed off either, but they did not object.....foolishly.
1
Many members of our congress lack the moral courage to make the right choices because they want to be reelected to congress more than they feel the need to make the right choice.
They don't want to be "primaried" ! (Challenged in the next primary election) so they make the "easier wrong choice") as described by General Clark.
I notice this happening all the time so it might be a good idea if members of congress first attend The U.S. Military Academy(as did the author General Wesley Clark) so they are "trained to choose the harder right than the easier wrong"
3
@M.W. Endres
Citizens of all legitimate professions bring unique strengths to public office.
What happens? This falling apart Banana Republic is what happens. We haven't had anyone with moral courage in charge of anything, in probably 30 years or more.
What we have is the world Ronald Reagan wanted us to have - one where every man, woman, and child is looking out for themselves, getting as much as they can, for themselves, no matter what damage it does to society. In such a culture, moral courage very, very rare. Because moral courage requires a person to think about their actions, and the impact, and act in ways that might not (and probably won't) benefit yourself. There is no thinking to be done in the Reagan-world we now live in. Just take care of yourself. Period.
3
Actually, in my opinion, leaders have lacked moral courage basically for the last about 60 years, as Congress failed to tax for all the legislation they passed that needed funding including the build up of the cold war, the Vietnam War, all the increases in entitlement spending, and the wars in the middle east the last over 17 years. Had they done that, it would of meant they took the policies they voted for, including wars seriously enough to let the voter decide which war, how long, etc. We have had nothing but poor domestic, and foreign policy since then. Our government policies, are now only decided by borrowed money for one small interest or the other, whether military, domestic, etc. Choose taxing for all of the legislation that is passed would make the average person pay attention. Now, not so much. Congress is a bunch of gutless wonders, except when it comes to passing legislation for over 70,000 pages of the IRS Tax Code, which in my opinion, only legalized extortion by lobbyists, lawyers, and the staff for Congress, where there is now, and going forward, less and less revenue collected to fund the government. Now, that is what you call a lack of moral courage.
4
It’s unfortunate that Mike Pence, a leader who personifies a lack of moral courage, will be speaking at this year’s West Point graduation.
23
I remember our inaction in Rwanda. It felt like indifference. But we acted in Bosnia and Kosovo. Wesley K. Clark says it's because we learned a moral lesson. That feels right. But is it also because the victims there were white and the Rwandan victims were black? There is another moral question to evaluate.
101
@Ruth Appleby Yes; America was guilty of racism in refusing to intervene in Rwanda, just as our government refuses to end the slaughter of gun violence and the killing of black citizens in our own country today. Unfortunately, with the immorality of our current autocratic leaning president and the Republican led senate nothing will improve soon. As well, innocent people in Syria, Yemen and the Palestinian people in Israel will continue to suffer and die. Add to all that the looming crisis of global climate change. We sorely need the moral leadership of Americans like Gen. Wesley Clark in our government.
4
@Ruth Appleby
I actually don't think so Ruth, but it is a good question. We acted in Bosnia and Kosovo after years of war. In Rwanda, it happened over a three month period, and after the fiasco in Somalia that saw American corpses dragged through the streets. The movie Black Hawk Down was made about this fiasco. The U.S. lost nerve after that...for intervening.
6
Many commenters here make no distinction between genocide against helpless people (Kosovo, Rwanda) and what are essentially civil wars between two or more armed groups vying for power in a nation.
The U.S.’s interference in civil wars has never created a favorable outcome for the countries we’ve invaded and attempted to occupy. Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq II, Afghanistan —all disasters for us and the inhabitants of those countries.
The U.S. failed to act after the infamous red-line was crossed in Syria. Assad’s air force could have been easily rendered useless by cratering his airfields with unmanned cruise missiles, but Obama dithered, unfortunately allowing the Russians to prop up Assad and make the Syrian civil war a bloodbath.
Failure to act to stop the morally unacceptable use of chemical weapons or a genocide makes the U.S. un-exceptional and very dispensable. It creates a level playing field for bad actors and hurts us geo-politically.
35
@John C: Rwanda is an example of what happens when ethnic groups competing for political control by population growth come up against the perceived limitations of the contested resources.
6
@John C
Hi John,
Unfortunately what we now call a civil war and what we now call a genocide was not necessarily understood at the time.
For instance, the "Rwandan Genocide" took place during the Rwandan Civil War. The Vietnamese Civil War was not understood as a civil war, but rather as a battleground between Communism and the "Free World", so this distinction is not helpful until possibly, after the damage is done.
11
Sigh. Be nice if the issue could actually be discussed without the typical far-right attacks on Obama.
Who certainly might have done more, but who DID go to Congress for the authorization to use force that McConnell and Ryan had demanded...and Congress blew town. And who DID get a pretty-good deal on chemical weapons, which mostly stopped those attacks. By the way...what’d Trump do, other than jump in bed with Russia, Assad’s main ally? And cut back on refugees? And who’s blocked stopping our aupport for Saudi Arabia’s ugly little war in Yemen? That wasn’t lib’ruls, either.
And who went after Cambodia? It wasn’t liberals. And who went after Iraq, then doubled down, then attacked Obama for setting a date to get out of there? It was ‘t liberals.
Oh, almost forgot. Bush didn’t invade Afhganistan as an intervention. Johnson didn’t whomp up the Gulf of Tonkin as an intervention.
Here’s something Wesley Clark didn’t bring up: morality begins with telling the truth, most importantly to yourself.
18
First-term presidents put one thing above all others: getting a second term. They waffle as Clinton did on Rwanda, and the result in his case was that his inaction is a greater stain on his presidency than his craven behavior with an intern.
The solution to this is to limit presidents to a single, six-year term. That would be enough to carry out the agenda they were elected to fulfill and if not, a successor could be elected to follow them.
44
@Bridgman Trump does not care about a second term. The men and women controlling him don't either. It's those people - the puppet masters hiding out with Bannon and other we never heard of - those are the problem. The president is simply a willing conduit for some very crazy people
8
@Bridgman
The single six-year term for presidents hasn't had the intended consequences in Mexico.
5
Funny how there is no mention of Iraq or Vietnam. It is noble-sounding to assert we need to intervene in the name of good, but more often our use of the military seems to be in the interests of political gain or to facilitate commerce. Be wary of the "human rights mission" which happens to occur in a resource-rich backwater with multinational financial interests.
69
Love this prayer. But let's talk about the lack of moral courage in pursuing "protecting our freedoms" in countries we have no business meddling in -- Iraq, Vietnam, Korea. We lacked the moral courage to say -- no -- I'm not sending our young men to die, simply because I think these countries should have a country like us.
118
@anonymouse Westmoreland forgot the prayer.
7
@anonymouse
Why America thinks it's a such a great idea to
interfere" and force "democracy" on a country that has only known a culture of war for hundreds of years is just beyond comprehension.
With the Supreme Court approving "Citizens United" so that $pecial interest$, with billions of $$$, literally write their own legislation and buy off our congressional representatives, our nation is looking far less "democratic" these days.
15
@anonymouse
Let's also have the moral courage to admit the real reason we send troops to these countries. It's not because we want them to be "like us." Is that why we invaded Iraq? Please.
13
So good to read your work here General Clark, in your transparent conveyance of our earlier failure and our later breakthrough of moral courage. Your life has always been an inspiration and is now a great reminder of the virtue and character we must rekindle to overcome that which is so lacking in our current president. I was honored to support your presidential campaign and get to shake your hand as you came through Santa Fe years ago.
2
Missing from this opinion piece, as with many such analyses of American military power's use is the connection to so much of that history's real purpose: extending or protecting American corporate interests. All well and good to claim moral victories and mourn failures in dramatic genocides. But to ignore the role of American economic/political oligarchies in sending troops to "intervene" around the world is to hide the truth so nobly quoted in the West Point recitation cited by Clark.
That hasn't changed as today's events demonstrate in the Middle East where we're supplying arms, funds and intelligence to autocratic murderous regimes including Saudi Arabia in Yemen. How about commenting on that, Mr. Clark.
110
Since so much of our strength comes from our economic power, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and visible world wide military presence. Anything less is gross naivety.
2
@Yankee49
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
"War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own role until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical of everyone in the military service..."
- General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC (Ret.), two-time Medal of Honor winner and the man who exposed a plot by far-right-wing business interests to stage a coup to topple the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, from a speech that same year, 1933.
29
@Yankee49
I am still hoping for some real resistance to the mounting drumbeat for escalating tensions with Iran, both from the public and Congress. This is completely trumped up (no pun intended). Iran has not harmed us. On the other hand, the U.S. colluded with the British in the 1950's to remove a democratically-elected, secular leader because he had the audacity to insist on larger profit-sharing (a mere 16"%) from Iran's own natural resource - oil. Enter the autocratic Shah and the murder of dissidents. We demonize whole peoples in order to justify killing them. We have a moral obligation to oppose this.
20
Our leaders lack moral courage for a singular reason, money. As campaigns have become cost prohibitive, they spend more time raising cash than focusing on things that matter to this country both internally and externally. It is desperation to hold onto their jobs, meanwhile nothing gets done. The politicians have become beholden to factions whether it is the evangelicals and their social issues, or the environmentalists with their scientific issues. When you have a rudderless President who is trampling over everything that came before and tweets when legislators don't do what he wants and they are afraid of losing their constituency, you wind up with weaklings, rather than people with conviction. No one in Congress has time to act for good, even if they know they should. Truly a sad state of affairs and as far as I can see, nothing we can do about it.
91
@Bill Money is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the pursuit of power for no clear purpose other than to have power. Most politicians are careerists—they see it as a desirable job and will do whatever it takes to hold on To it. Actually doing the job, nobly and with a vision for what can be achieved when people govern themselves well, is the absolute last thing on their minds.
81
@Bill
Are you seriously equating "evangelicals and their social issues" with "environmentalists with their scientific issues" as comparable examples of groups that politicians are "beholden to"?
This is so depressing, when factual scientific data is considered just another political opinion.
13
@Bill
We can and should do something about it. Vote them all out, then work for term limits. 1 six year term for anyone who serves as President, Senator or House member. Get rid of Citizens United, And require all of the Major TV Networks and Social Networks to give equal free time for each Candidate for President equal time to inform the voters why they should vote for them. And reduce all of their expense budgets and insist they have the same Health Care as all of the Citizens. I bet we would get an exceptional Health Care system then.
And while we are at it, anyone running for any Federal Office must have served in the Military as a criteria to be eligible to run.
3
Yes. It would be nice to think the US military spends its time off in the quest of defending "moral" absolutes and preventing genocide but, history and reality say otherwise. What they seem not to teach at West Point is the US military has been primarily used to enforce US corporate interests. It is the hammer wielded to ensure other countries operate their economies in a manner amenable to US investment and profit. Try and structure your economy otherwise and the US military comes knocking. This pretty much explains 90% of US military interventions covert and overt since WWII. The delusional nonsense that surrounds the American fetishization of the military and refusal to confront America's role as the world's largest arms merchant by magnitudes only leads to further suffering. Wars of choice to defend corporate interests raining down destruction on women, children and men are not heroic. Dispossessing and creating seas of refugees is not a contribution to the world.
After the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghani, Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian, and Yemeni wars. After the deaths of countless children caused by US sanctions 500,000 before the Iraq invasion alone and Albright infamously declaring on 60 Minutes it was a price she was willing to pay. After all this and in the face of an off the leash military industrial complex right now profitably increasing tensions everywhere around the world at once we want to talk about "moral authority"? Delusional does not begin to describe...
2
I'm already a cynic, but reading the Cadet prayer just makes me roll my eyes in mockery of those words, because they have no meaning in America today. We have a president who is not just content with half-truths, but who embraces out and out lies and distortions. A man for whom truth is just an abstract theory he's maybe heard of, but never practiced. Loyalty to all that is "noble and worthy"? Not in this White House or Congress, that's for sure. Scorns "vice and injustice"? A man who has bragged about his vices, has been celebrated for them and for whom injustice is a constant companion? Truth and right are certainly in jeopardy, but Trump shows no fear as he attacks both. Countering truth and right is the main preoccupation of his administration. Prayers such as this seem just quaint reminders of a yesterday that no longer exists in this country. General Clark is a relic of a bygone time, and so are his sentiments.
109
The lazy, cut-rate cynicism that immobilizes you and tries to immobilize others is not in any sense morality. This you should have figured out from Clark’s article, which is all about NOT sitting passively by.
12
@Ms. Pea Ugliness does not make goodness a relic of a bygone time. Cynicism does & gives the Trumps of this world even more power. Just think if Mandela & Gandhi had been cynics & not taken up the gauntlet to fight the Trumps in their countries.
15
I disagree. For the first time in more than 50-60 years you are witnessing the actions of a younger generation awakening to the blundering leadership of the Silent Generation leadership of this country. I have hope in the aspirations of these young individuals to rise up to the challenges of climate change, inequality and racism, the brutality of fascism, Russian style oligarchy and corporate driven patriotism as well as the incredible disruption caused by the pace of technology. The world of Pax Trump, Putin and their ilk is just gasping at the final throws of the end of their tyranny. Change is coming.
12
General Clark, our paths in life were very different: I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, and you were a graduate of West Point on your way to becoming a NATO supreme allied commander. But our paths crossed when you ran for president. We never met; however, I became an ardent supporter of your candidacy, campaigning for you in the Chicago south suburbs. I would have been a delegate representing you at the Democratic National Convention if you had won the nomination. That didn't happen.
What a shame.
A general with outstanding, proven leadership and vision, one who could have reset our country's moral compass, you were the antidote to George W. Bush. I'm sorry you never had the chance to challenge him head-on, but I'm grateful you tried. We came from two opposing perspectives as younger men and I never thought I would actively campaign for a general, but I found common ground with your exemplary leadership and vision for our country. Thank you for your service and for causing me to become a more active citizen.
212
@Kevin Amen. I supported Gen. Clark for president too and wish he had not withdrawn from the race so soon. Sadly I ponder how different our country could have been today had we benefitted from Gen. Clark's courage, intelligence and moral leadership in the Whitehouse. Now we must follow his good example and fight for what is good and right. We must get involved politically to support and vote for good candidates. We must encourage everyone we know to vote. Cynicism will get us nowhere.
10
I thought Gen. Clarke would have made an excellent POTUS. It is unfortunate that the progressively less qualified are elected. I am not optimistic about 2020 - I believe Trump will be reelected because good men and women will do nothing.
3
I wish I knew the answer to such questions as these. Gen. Clarke offers a strong but somewhat simplistic argument in favor of intervention on humanitarian grounds in such extreme cases. And I very much agree with the examples he offers. But what about all the rest? Not just Myanmar but the Congo and Yemen and Sudan and even China with its current genocide of the Uighurs? I mean something like 6 million people have been slaughtered in the Congo. Shouldn't we have been in there long ago stopping it? And is it all right for the Saudis to carry out their slaughter so long as they are our allies? Kind of like General Rios Mott in Guatemala who Reagan praised while he slaughtered a couple hundred thousand indigenous people. Or Zbigniew Brzezinski under Carter encouraging the Chinese to support Pol Pot in Cambodia back in the days of the Killing Fields where a few million innocents were slaughtered. And that's not to mention the military interventions that go haywire like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I wish it was always as simple as Gen. Clarke presents, a clear moral choice. But I fear that just ain't how the world works. Yet the moral imperative to act to stop such atrocities remains strong. I don't know if Bill Clinton has much of a conscious. But if he does, I have no idea how he sleeps with the knowledge that perhaps half a million people died because he failed to act when he could, and should, have. Why anyone wants to be President, I have no idea.
5
Well done General Clark.
Now, onto the future ... a future of unprecedented complexity that is accelerating exponentially.
We've generated myriad unprecedented relationships with the Sky, Ocean, food, water, soil, countless species, technology, etc.
Human numbers, powers and concomitant reach are unprecedented.
What is good becomes increasingly difficult to determine.
For example, should the gov't have seized control of Exxon & other companies in the 1990s in an attempt to halt climate change? The moral argument being that we need to take the pain, disruption and even loss of life in the short run to prevent the collapse of civilization & mass death.
(Yes, vastly more complex than that simple scenario—civil war, etc.)
Here's one reality about complexity:
Rapid complexity increases weaken the efficacy of code, whether genetic, language, math, moral, religious, legal, monetary, software, etc.
Code is fundamental, physics efficacious Relationship Infrastructure.
"The story of human intelligence starts with a universe that is capable of encoding information." Ray Kurzweil
I submit:
Both our biological and cultural coding structures are insufficient to navigate, to process, the emergent, complex & exponentially dynamic relationship information in the novel environs we continue to generate.
Our biological and cultural coding structures for relationship interface are increasingly mismatched with our environs.
They do not fit.
They are being rendered non-selectable.
6
My takeaway here is the West Point’s Cadet Prayer:
“Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.
Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice, and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.”
1
To be sure, Rwanda was a mess. Clinton learned from that mistake. But, General Clark appears to use courage to do the right thing only against smaller powers than say China or India. China is doing ethnic cleansing of uighurs and Tibetans. India's just re-elected president is described in one of today's opinion pieces as an unreconstructed ethnic-religious supremacist. Just curious if General Clark advocates stepping in to support minorities in China and India from mass genocide and ethnic cleansing... such as he advocated for Rwanda and the Balkans.
1
What part of a dictatorship do the American people not understand? A lone man has absolute control of this nation. He has a toadying Senate and Supreme Court rubber stamping his every action. He has committed felonies and will pay no price. And he will leave office only at a time of his choosing. The Republican "leadership" dare not cross him, or they will feel the wrath of his rabid base.
Just this past week Trump told his cheering crowds that he would stay in office at least five terms. And the Republican Senate remains silent.
Trump now knows that he is limited only by his imagination and the laws of physics. And while he is consolidating absolute power, columns like this continue with the intellectual handwringing.
News flash, Americans: The sixty percent of you who want this country returned to a democracy have done way too little, way too late. Oh, you have had a few large scale protests that were really nothing more than media events. You have undertaken no sustained, large public protests. And more than two years on, you should know that Senate Republicans will continue to kowtow to every edict Trump issues.
If Trump had conducted himself as he has, as a leader of any other Western nation, the majority of its citizens would have been in the streets, en masse, every week. But Americans have shown this past two years that while they may not like a dictatorship, they will do nothing to fight it. And this surprises me much more than anything Trump has done.
8
Too bad Mr. Clark ignored that fact that Americans wouldn't go for sending 20,000 troops into Africa because Americans don't care about Black people as much as White people, evidenced by their lukewarm, but nevertheless support, of entry into the Balkans. Let's remember that.
2
Why did no African nation intervene in Rwanda?
Nice article. Sadly it only heightened my own anger and frustration in our current Mad King/Mob Boss in office. I don't even wish to think of the entire GOP with the exception of the lone voice amongst them, Justin Amash. As I read your piece I hope someday to be proud of our country again. 2020 Vote Them Out
4
We’re all guilty of too little moral courage. Think of dumping a house with problems, walking past litter, selling a sketchy running car, or speeding when no one appears to be around. These gutless actions kick the can down the round for someone else to pick up. At worst, they harm the environment or the public.
This culture has become way too good at Not In My Back Yard, it’s Not MY Problem that it is now looking back at us from the White House.
3
"West Point Cadet Prayer", really? And (apparently) memorization and recitation is required at the US Military Academy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Who are they praying to? Religious indoctrination seems out of place at a government installation if you ask me.
1
You cannot even talk about moral courage when the leaders of our country have no moral or ethical core beliefs and no commitment for making the world a better place for all.
What we get is a constant stream of lies and half-truths that have destroyed any moral ground we may have held. Men of Mr. Clark's stature are in short supply in this country.
3
Interesting article, but what? No conclusion? Does the current leadership, in your opinion, have moral courage? What does the history lesson tell us about now and the future?
Furthermore, the prayer makes no reference to military action, force or violence. Could the “harder right” be diplomatic resolution and the “easier wrong” be dropping bombs and sending young adults overseas?
The full prayer has an air of religious monotheism and a twinge of nationalism not present in the truncated version presented in the article. Not that it matters, but it sounds more like indoctrination when read in it’s entirety rather than transcendental aphorisms presented in this piece.
https://westpoint.edu/about/chaplain/cadet-prayer
1
Thank you, Gen. Clark, for your service to the nation and speaking up for moral courage.
Please do lend your voice to the hapless Iraqi Yazidis victims who had been enslaved or killed, and whose women had been raped and treated as sub-humans by Sunni Muslim extremists. As the Rwanda example shows, the evil people will continue to commit atrocities if the morally upright people stay silent.
2
I strongly disagree and take serious offence with the opinion expressed in this piece. Our military should not ever take action to address what it or our government or nation thinks is a moral crisis. In fact, I think its highly immoral to suggest that our military take action based on some perceived moral crisis. It is scary to think of our military, or any military, taking violent action and using force based on what they think is a moral imperative. What about the literal thousands of years of Christian , Muslim and Communist (to name a few) armies fighting other Christians, Muslims, Communists about what is morally right or wrong? How many indigenous people were slaughtered because they weren't "Christians", or Jews killed because they weren't Christians or Muslims? How many Protestants killed Catholics, and Catholics killed Protestants, and Shia killed Sunnis, and Sunnis killing Shias? Its never ending and these armies almost always think they are in the moral right. What horror is this so-called "Humanity". Was the Vietnam War moral? In contrast, I see nothing immoral about our Military taking action to defend us or our interests. That's different. But to act on some perceived morality.....nonsense and horrific.
1
It's not only people in politics who are sold out left and right...most of our industries are... financial industry, movie industry, pharmaceutical, educational institutions, you name it, sports, etc...
Just minor news for today...
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/23/us/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-calk.html
Bank CEO Charged With Trying to Trade Loans for Trump Post
Again, Congress issued subpoena for 9 banks.
The fleecing of working people has been going on for decades with no true oversight or punishment...it will probably takes decades to turn it around in a total opposite direction.
2
Thank you, General Clark, for continuing to serve the country in disarray and a political "Cold War" state and bring some sanity! It's good to know West Point has a vision that encourages young cadets to surpass their personal motives and backgrounds but to focus on the fundamental virtues that could keep them thoughtful and humane and that potentially safeguard and better the society and alleviate the undesirable human condition. I'm wondering, though, what the pledge of law students would be in the U.S. law schools. What are they being trained for? It appears that most lawyers working for the POTUS 45 are self-serving and selfish, if not egomaniacal. I have believed legal minds are centered around fair and just decision making based on sound facts and logic, as well as social consciousness and awareness of the importance of law and order and public trust, in order to sustain a healthy and just and well-informed society, which emphasizes America's foundational ideals and raises citizens' confidence in the future of their offspring's wellbeing, peace, and justice. What do prospective lawyers learn and get trained for? Why don't we see lawyers with truthfulness, passion, conviction, and discipline so often? Why do so many lawyers (many of who are politicians, esp., legislators) act like they have sold their souls to the Devil?
2
There is an old aphorism that the mark of an individual’s strong moral code is evident when someone does the right thing while no one Is watching.
We have in our president an individual who doesn’t even do the right thing when people are, in fact, watching him. What’s worse is that he doesn’t care.
Americans should not only care.They also need to keep watching him. Our nation, as we know it, demands nothing less.
3
It bothers me considerably that the article begins by quoting a prayer that is supposed to instruct cadets at a military institution. Can not these same virtues be instilled without religious conventions of prayer? Surely, as scripture tells us, prayer is to be done privately and out of individual need and conviction, not as a matter of public statement and ostentation. While I'd find it hard to disagree with the propositions put forward here as to the justification for war and exercise of power, it seems entirely inappropriate to me that it should be enveloped into the rationale of prayer.
3
Power and the human race and the persistent conception emanating from quarters of power at all times and places that power must be sought to do good rather than evil and that evil can be overcome by the power of good, and that the most important thing a leader can have is moral courage?
The human race is quite strange. In all times and places you get the basic argument that there is good and there is evil, and evil must be overcome, and that the power of good must be increased over evil, yet it appears definitions of good tend to be quite fixed, unchanging over time, and there never seems to be enough power to overcome evil, power must always be increased, to point that today we have WMD, massive computation and surveillance to anticipate threats from not only enemies but ordinary citizens, friends, family, and still there is never enough good but so much evil and we need still more power to do good over evil.
When evil keeps remaining elusive to us, outstripping our concepts of good no matter how much we increase power, maybe it's time to wonder if we know anything about what's good at all, because what's clearly evident is we seem to be increasing power rather than doing good, it's much more clear power of ourselves is increasing than actions of good. We have increased our power immeasurably beyond wielding wooden clubs like primate forbears, yet your basic cow in the field seems more peaceful, less inclined to evil, than the modern human being.
1
There's a difference between intervention and nation building. The problem is that intervention often leads to nation building. As history has shown, over the centuries, nation building, as in re-building an existing nation into something else, rarely works or lasts.
The few exceptions involved literal scorched earth, as in Germany and Japan. Of course the collapse of the USSR shows what happens when totalitarian might gives way to personal choices and freedoms.
2
NYT, you used to have an icon that allowed me to print out and save an article. Wish that would come back.
1
@Saba Thank you for your comment. Though we don't offer a print button anymore, you can still do so by clicking "File" in the top left of your screen and selecting "Print." There, you should be able to print and, depending on the browser, save as a PDF file. I hope this helps. Thanks for reading.
3
Try e/mailing the article to yourself and then printing.
2
While I agree with General Clark that we should have intervened in Rwanda and that our intervention in the Balkan wars were a success, we should keep in mind that not all interventions are successful and some result in very bad consequences. Our intervention in Libya comes to mind. The moral courage to take action must be accompanied with a plan that includes an exit strategy that ends in success. This is never easy and sometimes impossible. It was the danger of catastrophic consequences that caused Obama to hesitate rather than bombing raids after Assad’s chemical weapons attack. The result was a negotiated surrender of chemical weapons that probably would have worked if it was proceeded by a bombing raid. The point is that that a willingness to act militarily must be accompanied with a realistic plan to complete the intervention with a diplomatic effort that results in an enforceable agreement. Without it the best course of action may be to do nothing which is very hard to accept. One could argue that it would be easier to deal with these crises if the U.S. could lead an effort in the U.N to build an capability to act when a crisis like Rwanda or the recent one in Myanmar occur. Jacinda Adern has shown us that kind of leadership is possible even in these dark times of rising authoritarian leaders like Trump. We need to display moral courage not just to act in a time of crisis but also to fight to install leaders who can act with wisdom when a crisis occurs.
7
General Clark recounts examples of a couple of righteous and successful military interventions, but all military interventions are presented as being righteous and we never know in advance whether it will stop the killing or ethnic cleansing or not. And sometimes killing and ethnic cleansing goes on but if it's done by our allies like Israel we look away. The invasion of Iraq was supposed to be for the good but it was a hot mess and left the Middle East worse off than before. Iraq was relatively secular, women had civil rights, and its Sunni leadership balanced Shia Iran. Our invasion and occupation drove Sunnis from government who then formed ISIS.
Democracy doesn't grow like a magic beanstalk, and sometimes military intervention makes things worse, and nothing General Clark says here helps me understand which wars to jump in to and which wars to avoid.
9
@Sherry
Military interventions for economic gain are more likely to backfire.
1
@Sherry
We have also intervened militarily overtly and covertly in Kuwait, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, China, Korea, all listed in no particular order, and most with poor results. It seems that it is important to have real and definite goals and the commitment to reach them before we enter into conflicts.
2
@Sherry
But if a clearly superior side is committing genocide against the other, should that be considered a war?
General Clark, thank you for your service to our Nation.
We have the largest military force ever assembled on Earth, certainly the most expensive one.
From my reading of history I think the last time our military was employed protecting Americans on our own soil was the Indian Wars of the West about 140 years ago.
The times before that were in 1777 against other Brits; in 1812 against Brits again; and in 1860 against fellow Americans.
Since then, with the exception of the two World Wars, our military has mainly been used to protect corporate interests more than American lives.
We always seem to be preparing for the last war judging by what gets bought and paid for, but one thing is sure and that is the war profiteers are making fortunes for themselves. As General/President Eisenhower warned.
And now that giant military machine is in the hands of a mad man who is treating it like his toy.
What will the generals do if t rump decides to cancel the election next year?
Can the so called commander in chief be court martialed? And thrown into a military prison to save the costs of impeachment?
Good Luck
12
General Clark, we have spent many hours together (you may even be able to guess who I am behind my pseudonym), and I have always admired your intellectual brilliance coupled with your strong ethical and moral stance. Once again, you rise to the occasion. Thank you for this important op-ed; the generalizations beyond the application of military force--although only implied in the text--are clear.
10
I would think it would be a badge of honor and courage to lose an election -- or job -- because you vigorously campaigned for what you believe in, particularly when you are standing alone.
Atticus Finch lost in court, but think about what people think of him today -- and how what he fought for eventually became law.
Where have you gone Mr. Finch?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
15
Too bad our 'leaders' can't bring themselves to act similarly domestically in defense of threatened and damaged populations, rather than continually pander to monied interests (be it the drug companies, fossil fuel industry, Puerto Ricans, or all of us in the face of Climate Change).
10
I enjoyed reading Wesley Clark's piece largely because it discussed ethics, political decision making, diplomacy, and military intervention all in historical context. It was refreshing to read something in the NYT that was global, historical, and philosophical. Something that was not specifically about Donald Trump, nor about some current identity based or partisan issue.
So of course the most recommended of the "Reader Picks" is all about Trump and Pelosi.
Trump is horrible, no argument there. So let's defeat him, please, by all means.
But seriously, when you watch a sporting event do you root for a team based on whether they are from a Blue State? Did you watch Game of Thrones and compare characters to Trump, Pelosi, Mitch and the rest?
Sometimes an essay on ethics is just an essay on ethics.
9
Every once in a while, it helps to stay in touch with reality. Thanks for your service.
14
"...in the midst of the Bosnian war, Bosnian Serb soldiers seized the United Nations-designated “safe area” of Srebrenica and massacred some 8,000 Muslim men and boys. The United States called on NATO for a response plan and renewed diplomatic efforts led by Richard Holbrooke, the assistant secretary of state, to end the fighting. Soon the Serbs struck at Bosnian civilians again, this time with a mortar attack on a crowded marketplace, and the Atlantic alliance responded with air power."
This is true, BUT! General Clark leaves out that despite the massacre Bill Clinton still lacked the resolve and courage to take action and had to have his arm twisted to finally act. In the end he settled first for air strikes and then finally approved limited troop deployments. It was NOT President Clinton's determination but rather the determination of others to coax a hesitant, fearful and cowardly president into action. Clinton literally had to be dragged kicking and screaming into action. Clinton also initially withheld deployment of attack helicopters and other equipment requested by the Pentagon. All of which could have been used to end the conflict long before the slaughter took place. General Clark knows this and he is disingenuous in his remarks.
Clinton's defense secretary also failed him by refusing a request for tanks before the mission change in Mogidishu resulting in the slaughter of 18 American soldiers.
Obama's failures are similar to Clinton's.
I'm afraid of Trump.
8
@Jay Not true. The Republicans ran the House and Newt Gingrich suddenly discovered his pacifist side. There were strict ROE’s imposed in the congressional authority to use force that precluded direct engagement. There were no American lives lost, but the crisis was lengthened and the butcher’s bill lengthened.
1
"Our values".....and if truth and respect for others and the constitution itself are not part of our presidential character, we indeed are in trouble. Under our current presidency we are part of the world-wide wave of reactionary nationalism - its' racism, xenophobia, the curtailing of human rights, and it cannot lead with values of truth and social justice. Our values have to be defined by much higher standards of character than we are seeing in the populist wave of reactionary fear and hate that our president now models for the world. If we held to the values of freedom grounded in social justice and peace we would be extending these values to nations around us instead of cowering behind a cry for a wall. It's high time to elect such leadership!
10
The majority of our leaders have always lacked moral courage. What they have have done is shamelessly promoted themselves and sold themselves to the highest bidder, while mastering the art of lying. They join the 'in club' and then rotate from government to corporate positions, back and forth. Shamelessly.
7
I weary of excuses from our leaders like, "but it would hurt our economy!" So what? I get that the economic cost of some moral decisions might be high... and maybe too high on some cases. But I am one American who would be willing to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience if it meant my country was doing what was right in the world. A leader is someone who inspires the people to live with some adversity for a greater good. I really wish we had a leader in this country.
13
@Peter
Most "it would hurt the economy" really means it would hurt the business of our campaign contributors, even while it might help the overall economy.
3
The most accurate picture of "lack of moral courage" are the Republican leaders who surround the amoral, ignorant, incompetent Donald Trump. They know he is destroying our democracy and credibility in the world, but they seek the support of his misguided base. Moral cowards is the correct term for these people.
31
Totally agree but what you do say of the moral leadership of Nancy Pelosi and her team who want to kick the can to the voters? Where is the courage in that? How do they stack up to the Corps code? Not well in my opinion.
3
Does the phrase “gutless wonders” strike a note?
3
First, thank you General Clark for your service.
Impressive that given your position as a Hillary Clinton acolyte that you point the finger directly where it belongs re: Rwanda Massacre - Madeleine Albright. Same woman who danced with the North Koreans when signing a worthless agreement that led to their acquisition of nuclear weapons. And who couldn't understand why young women didn't fawn over Hillary. The worst example of a public servant. How does she sleepat night?
Sad that commenters as always used Clark's words to attack Trump. Trump has made it clear that he will use our military power to protect the innocent. But to be careful doing it. He is pushing back on the greatest totalitarian threat - China. He removed Daesh from its so-called Caliphate - the Obama JV who slaughtered hundreds of thousands with little reaction from Obama. Trump also set a real red line with regard to use of chemical weapons in Syria.
3
When our leaders lack moral courage we see immigrant children imprisoned and dying—grossly unAmerican crimes. As president of the United States Trump is fully responsible for these fascist death camps where he is holding these innocents.
10
Could it be mere coincidence that we did not act to save black African slaughter, but white Europeans got help?
12
We - President Obama -failed to show moral courage in Syria and that has had devastating consequences.
And yet, even huge failures of moral courage are no excuse to continue to fail to act.
Trump, however, believes that moral courage is for pansies.
His hero is Roy Cohn.
6
@SCZ
Sending other people's sons and daughters to die overseas may be an easy decision for a narcissistic draft dodger like trump, but it is a much harder for someone with empathy.
1
Moral courage is not something our GOP congress is interested in. they are a party of racists and double-dealing low-lifes, whose only motivation is greed, in full tandem with with their "Capo di Capos" crime boss in the White House.
10
Which brings us to Venezuela....there are no other excuses, as in past instances where we failed to act promptly apply. An illegitimate and murderous regime, hell bent on staying in power, complicit with a corrupt and disjointed military force, more effective at repressing unarmed civilians is testing the US resolve. Is it true that all options are still on the table?
Why is the US asking for Russia’s permission to act decisively? Isn’t it obvious to all that Cuba helped and maintained Chavez and now Maduro, and with their “assistance” anywhere between 20 - 30 thousand Cubans have invaded and effectively subvert all efforts to restore democracy from the inside? How many Venezuelans would have to die or emigrate for someone with courage (and effective means) act?
5
I doubt that our current president has the patience to fully comprehend the historic nature of action--reaction syndrome in which one good reaction based upon morality can lead to threats from other nations who are not motivated by any morality, i.e.: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. Democracy and 1st amendment freedoms put a check on power to allow for a moral review.
3
Today, a lot of our leaders don't have time to think about ethical principles and the defense of the justice.
1
@Trassens
I cannot accept this premise, not having time. If ethical principles are not the fundamental basis for a leader's actions, he is unmoored, easily swayed, leading his charges into an abyss.
5
@Trassens, Huh? Isn't that the basis upon which they are elected? It's their JOB to have time to do it morally.
2
If ever there was an example of moral courage, it would be Justin Amash.
If ever there was an example of lack of moral leadership, it was Romney when he spoke of Justin Amash, agreed with his opinion of Trump, but couldn't support his call for impeachment.
18
If we can save ourselves from ourselves, perhaps the best way is for as many of us as possible to become virtuous in the ancient Greek sense: temperate, brave, and just. To possess these virtues, one must be wise.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did their best to guide us in that direction, but few followed the path. Few could. Therefore, as has been said many times, salvation is not possible for the many, just the few.
And, of course, the world's troubles will never cease. For a convoy is only as fast as its slowest ship.
3
No, no, and no to calling the Dayton agreement an example of a sound American leadership strategy. Hindsight is 20/20, and you need to stop and reflect. Dayton May have been a quick win for you, a check on the task box, but a failed long term strategy. As a Bosnian refugee (1998 post war), while Clinton decision to bomb Serbs was necessary, and I applaud it although it came too little too late (while NATO cowered down), the ensuing Dayton agreement ultimately ensured propagation of dangerous nationalistic ideas and is indirectly responsible for the current economic and political instability. And no, there is no such thing as separate but equal doctrine here. Dayton gave power to creation of Republika Srpska, a dangerous enterprise that is, among other things, sowing hate again and halting progress, including Bosnian entry to the EU. I could go on, but my immediate concern is the increasing tension in the region and what appears to be heading down the wrong path again.
5
Provocative, insightful essay, Gen Clark. Thank you!
It's been a while since I've read a genuinely balanced discussion of pros and cons of any major issue. And thank you for that too!
Sadly any clear sense of using "power acting for good" has been murkied by US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt, and out collusion with the likes of the Saudis
And the rhetoric of using US "power for good" has been appropriated by right-wing belligerents like Bolton, Pompeo, and Trump. Nobody believes them when they spout. We all know it's a cloak for their belligerence.
As a result, the world is deeply suspicions of the USA and its uses of power, and people in the USA are deeply cynical of the uses -- and clear abuses -- of our military and economic power for "good."
Lies, duplicity, and deception have eaten away at our belief in our role and our government, like some corrosive acid. And Trump and his gang daily pour vats of corrosive acid on the now-frail workings of our government and our faith in it to use US power for anything other than the cynical, self-serving ends of kleptocrats and oligarchs.
16
The big problem with moral authority is that everybody thinks they have it.
26
Thank you Wesley Clark for the reminder of what courage and sacrifice looks like and of the horrific consequences when both are absent. I cannot help but think that racism factored into the decision not to intervene in Rwanda. And I cannot help but think how the West Point prayer should describe the character and behavior of our highest elected chief executive, and how miserably lacking and deficient our current President is.
8
I think well of Wes Clark, and I see his point. But must we be the policemen of the world? Problems involving genocide are for the civilized nations not just for us. It seems to me that a feckless United Nations is at the root of the failures in these cases. But the United States should lead. If not what does "American exceptionalism" really mean?
6
The problem with this is neither General Clark's nor the US military's professionalism and moral leadership. The problem is that the current Commander-in-Chief is an odious bully who wouldn't understand the concept of moral leadership if he had ever encountered it. Interventions conceived by such a man are dangerous.
Given his complete debasement of the Presidency as a source of either truth or morality, he is the last person on earth whom I would trust to make a decision for a military intervention. Nor do I have any trust that he would accept the advice of those who might be competent to give it.
This is a President who KNOWS that he is smarter than his generals , his Secretary of State and his intelligence professionals. HE is the "greatest genius."
It is quite likely that he is in the process of fomenting a war for the purpose of distracting the country from his misdeeds. His tempermental instability is more evident daily. He is unfit to make the decisions required for an intervention.
20
@Howard Eddy
Well said. Has Trump ever missed an opportunity to distract the public from his increasingly immoral actions each and every time, with some trumped up reason for --- in this case war with Iran. "I won't do it unless I have to!" But Bolton and Pompeo hold too much influence over him this time; he hasn't the strength of character to read their ulterior motives and certainly not to understand his own.
This is coming dangerously close to a horrible misstep. Pleas wake up America.
5
@A. Martin
P.S. Several journalists have kept track of the multiple lies Trump has told.
Could someone -- and this will require a little more application -- record for future historians and/or future Presidents, examples of all the times Trump subconsciously, the clever devil, has used distraction to camouflage or "cover up" whatever current moral threat is destabilizing his fragile ego. And possibly, in hindsight, which one led to war. Again, Americans, please wake up.
2
Thank you, Gen. Clark, for urging every Republican senator to emulate the Cadet Prayer and "choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong.” Unfortunately, it won't do any good. They have chosen to kiss the feet of a naked emperor with no moral compass. Even Pompeo, a graduate of West Point, has forgotten that prayer.
10
As I read this, I kept expecting Mr. Clark to segue to discussing the utter lack of courage by Republicans in Congress to stand up to a corrupt President.
14
@Rich different chapter, same book.
2
Bravo, Sir! You hit the nail right on the head. Using power for good is exactly what makes America exceptional. I was privileged to be in the Big Green Machine in the 1980's and 1990's with an embarrassingly low MOS. Rolling back the Warsaw Pact forces from Fulda to Minsk without having to fire a shot always seemed a miracle to me. I hope that one day we recapture the determination and the desire to do good in the world.
5
Now picture the response/concern if Rwanda had meaningful reserves of oil up for grabs.
11
That’s a lot of high falutin talk, sounds impressive, but back to reality.
The only reason we did something in Yugoslavia is because in concerned Europe. Rwanda is somewhere in the middle of Africa and of very little interest to the West.
4
Our so-called president lack morals and courage, forget moral courage.
11
I have tremendous respect for General Clark but I suspect he is wrong about lacking moral courage. I suspect the argument between us is over the difference between immoral and amoral.
When men are amoral moral courage is moot.
I wish Hannah Arendt was avail to write about our times in the New Yorker.
6
Bill explains the argument for term limits in Congress. How about a 3 term maximum?
1
@Gail H. Goodman
But they will waste the first two terms thinking about nothing but getting re-elected. How about ONE relatively long term?
1
I wish the article had dissected the immorality and leadership failures of several administrations and Congress that brought us the Vietnam War. That was a singular event in my generation that alienated millions of Americans, tearing us apart.
A whole generation became angry, resentful and skeptical of government. The “Harvard Whiz Kids” in D.C. , led by Def Sec Robert McNamara, were utterly lacking in moral virtues. Millions of Vietnamese perished - civilian men, women and children and the vacuum ushered in Cambodia’s Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They murdered and starved defenseless millions more - civilian men, women and children. If you came from a city or wore glasses or could read, you died. As in Rwanda, we Americans did nothing. The Vietnamese army, our former enemy, drove them out of Cambodia.
‘Make America Great Again”? For me, greatness requires moral courage, top down and bottom up. Trump, his colleagues, family and friends do not have it.
11
How could you read that and not conclude Wesley Clark's words are aimed at the heart of Republican Party leadership.
6
Appreciate the insights. But the observation that Congress was not going to authorize 20K troops and $2B to do peacekeeping in Africa says a lot. However, we intervened in Bosnia. Could race have anything to do with it? Moreover, what moral lessons are you preaching for today? Please be clear.
4
The words moral and modern leadership (such has it is) in the same sentence. A contradiction in terms at best I'm afraid. There hasn't been a US leader (of either party) that could be accused of morality or ethics since Jimmy Carter and before him maybe Harry Truman. I don't see any signs of that changing either. The only Politicians in whatever country you choose to name stand for is election. For all their soundbytes for all their proclamations after the election no policy, no real change to be seen.
Undoubtedly most commentators on here will proclaim it is all the Republicans fault. That Trump is all that lacks moral leadership. Sorry folks both parties lack anything approximating moral (Or Honest) leadership. It's been that way all of my life and shows no signs of changing. Our "Leaders" (If you want to call them that) will say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever benefits their big donors. And that's both parties not just the Republicans for all the pretenses the Democrats just have firmly have their noses up the big donors....... pockets looking for money and quid pro quo has the GOP. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the reality the policies that are carried out by BOTH parties are those that benefit the big donors. Irregardless of Morality, Leadership, Campaign promises that is the reality. Moral Leadership? Yeah right in what world? Certainly not this one!
2
@Stephan Several of the Democratic candidates are refusing money from PACS and big donors.
1
@Tiny Tim
AAAh! But ask yourself a question even if the presidential candidate refuses will the people in congress who have made fortunes out of quid pro quo with special interests ? Leadership is more then just the president, it involves the leadership of congress most of which in both parties is about has honest as Huey Long,
1
This man should have been president in 2004.
5
Trump's 62M passionate supporters have proven that personal integrity is not a necessary condition for leadership. They know he's dishonest and immoral, they simply don't care because he provides them with something else of value. To 40% of the country, transactionalism beats integrity in the conduct of leadership. The "leader integrity" crowd, who profess the gospel of honesty and integrity like megachurch pastors, are either going to have to explain the current Republican party, or find another schtick for their leadership speaking gigs and books.
5
As I was reading this, I was thinking that, yes, he's going to lambast the Trump administration and Congress for their inaction on Yemen..........and then there was no mention at all of the atrocities that we are helping Saudi Arabia commit.
2
I appreciate the earnestness of the opinion. However, we're skipping over some rather critical context. US inaction over Rwanda was the result of what happened in Mogadishu. Ninety-one US troops killed or wounded, some getting dragged through the streets and mutilated on camera and one US captive eventually released. This happened in October 1993.
Mogadishu is why any suggestion of sending ground troops into a Rwandan mob of machete wielding Hutus was resoundingly rejected. We couldn't use air strikes either because how are you going target Hutu militia without killing the Tutsis too. A bomb can't make the distinction at machete length and how are you going tot select targets anyway. Chances are good you'll just make the genocide worse.
You might notice the Somali hangover also bled into US thinking in Bosnia too. No troops on the ground. The difference in the Bosnian-Serbian conflict was air power could have a meaningful impact. The moral upside was an added bonus. However, as practical matter, the US did the right thing because the right thing was tactically actionable at a relatively low political cost.
Then of course we have George W. Bush. What does West Point say when a leader manipulates American values to achieve a personal objective? Did we do the "right" thing by attempting unprovoked regime change in Iraq? Half a million war related deaths. You have you're own little Rwanda right there. All for a US lie.
4
Listen, make no mistake about it. All leaders (democratically elected) lack moral courage; it is the integral part of a successful politician (by success I mean elect-ability). A case in point is our President: he is definitely not timid and does not lack courage, and what does he get for it: complete disrespect and disregard from the Democrat party mandarins.
1
@Yulia Berkovitz So if all democratically elected leaders lack moral courage, and Trump does not lack courage, what is the assessment?
He wasn't democratically elected?
He's not a leader?
He has courage but it is not moral courage?
1
So Kosovo worked, Australian Timor intervention worked, first Iraq War worked- and yet everyone is saying we should do ’------’ when the next issue arises because of Iraq or Vietnam. What an illogical conversation. In that blank what are you seriously proposing when saying the largest military with the largest economy should not act for good across a border? You can moderate approaches all you want, say we need better plans than last time, I’d agree all day but when you press anyone on their non-interventionism they always eventually resort to ’its not our fight’. Well great, and tomorrow I'm sure you'll tell me about how we must fight fascism yet you've literally proposed for an inward looking ideology yourself
2
General Clark calls for courage from our leaders; I call for courage from our fellow citizens who support this corrupt, feckless and profoundly ignorant president.
We cannot count on moral courage from our political leaders, but we can count on them doing what is in their interests. Until those at the margins of Republican support – those who voted for Trump as the lesser evil – recognize the desperate straits that their support has brought us to we are unlikely to see any stiffening spines in Republican politicians.
4
We have an administration led by old white men who do nothing but protect their wallets. They have no interest in saving us from war or conflict, they are however interested in their collective bottom lines. tRump and Mnuchin are at the very top in that. They never had the courage to serve in the military so they have no problem sending some one else's loved one into a fool's battle so they can make more money. If we have a war let Mnuchin and a few others be first to sign up to go. Let Jared Kushner, Donald Jr. and Eric be lead the charge to the recruitment office. Let them buddy up to the Marines who always go in first, or the Army ground pounders who tote cannons and drive hummers. After they sign up then maybe the rest can follow their stellar leadership. OOPs! They don't offer leadership except when it involves sending money to their bank account. They probably all own stock in companies that produce weapons. If you think I am angry you are right. I am tired of seeing the youth of our nation sent on fool's errands. I lost my husband to the fools who engineered the "peace keeping" mission in Lebanon. One does not send Marines to keep peace, they are there to fight and when their hands are tied behind them they cannot fight, they only die.
10
Relying on God for authority is cowardice. All claims to know what any hypothetical deity thinks about the human condition are simply the projections of the people who make them. God is a contrivance to preclude equitable negotiations.
8
It is difficult to exercise moral courage when you have no morals to start with.
9
General, What path will the military take when Trump asks it to arrest his accusers and help him seize control of the nation?
4
@Donald
I can't speak for the current military members, but as a naval officer I took an oath to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic," not an oath to defend the president. I think that oath was formulated to protect the country from would be dictators. I have faith that the majority of current officers would be true to their oath and those who were unable would suffer the consequences. Unlike many others currently in positions of power the military takes freedom, responsibility and honor to heart.
Its not a coup in defense of the Constitution, its the law.
2
"Power is capabilities + will." Stephen Kotkin
"Power is acting for good?" Empty platitude, is Clark about to announce for the Democrats for President? Lol we needn't wonder why nobody listens to Wesley Clark anymore.
2
Is it lack of moral courage that has caused the military to be unable to stop the “rape problem” that persists in their ranks?
4
Our so called leaders are a pack of cowards one and all not to mention corrupt corrupt corrupt. We make it a point to do the wrong thing every time and never learn.
5
Did the color of the victims have any bearing on the decisions made about the Tutus?
5
Despite all appearances to the contrary, Americans still have a part to play in the battle against evil. And not all Americans are spineless liars who are only interested in their own glory and advancement. For that many of us here in Europe are sincerely grateful. I have not said everything here, but I expect you can fill in the gaps.
6
Not all humans are divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.
I don't expect nor do I need nor want moral guidance nor humanity from America's military-industrial complex.
I expect the military to deter and defend me and my America and my fellow Americans constitutional republic of united states values and interests.
I expect the military to follow lawful civilian and military orders.
By having laws of war paradoxically that makes war more humane and tolerable.
Ignoring the humanity of black Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi reflects America's enduring innate white European America Judeo-Christian color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, sectarian bigoted prejudiced supremacy. Mali,Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Congo and Eritrea are full of faceless, invisible and nameless people.
The suffering of Houthi men, women and children in Yemen is invisible. The suffering of Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza is invisible. The suffering of men, women and children in Puerto Rico, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is invisible.
See 'Animal Farm' ; '1984' George Orwell; Matthew 25:31-46
3
@Blackmamba
Yes -- thank you, Blackmamba, the invisible. They need a voice. It is our call to listen to them, rather than to the calls of power, ego, and domination systems.
3
@David
'I am an invisible man' from the unnamed protagonist in 'Invisible Man' by Ralph Ellison
2
I am praying that Pelosi is the one doing the "baiting". That she will continue to toy and taunt the thin-skinned imposter in the Oval Office. That she is indeed playing 11 dimensional chess while Trump struggles to draw a tic tac toe game. Praying that when the tide turns she will unleash the full powers invested in her by our Constitution. Praying.
6
Mr. Clark, it is hypocritical to try to absolve yourself here of the utter neglect and dismissal you and your camp displayed towards the suffering Rwandan people. You may have "submitted" something to Albright, this is the first time I heard of this, but clearly it made no difference. Indeed, your deceptive words reveal you. It was much more important for you and the Clinton camp to meddle into the complex wars engulfing European Yugoslavia at every turn, but even there you do not have much to show, than it was to truly stop a genocidal campaign in a poor, African country. I therefore am not sure why you're even getting praise or what you're implying here. For your guilt and apologies, what do the thousands of Rwandan victims get? Not even solace and reconciliation, because these have befallen squarely on them. I am concerned that any so-called humanitarian intervention has in essence strategic purposes and if Rwanda (God forbid) happened again and you were in power, I am not sure you would act even now.
1
send this prayer to mitch.
6
Lot of good points here, General Clark. Thank you.
But the words of President Adams ring in my mind. To the effect:
The United States does not roam the world in search of dragons to slay. We wish well to all nations--but we have our own nation to consider.
I'm remembering a cartoon from the 1990's showing a map of the world as it appeared to President Clinton.
The map had all those countries in Europe-Asia--Africa. Every single one of them marked Vietnam. . . .Vietnam. . . .Vietnam. . . . .
The truth is--and you know it well, General--we got clobbered in southeast Asia. The goal was--a war of attrition. Wear down the enemy. Make him tired of fighting.
No. WE got worn down. WE got tired of fighting.
Should we have gone into Rwanda? Maybe. The genocide there was indeed horrible--the cruelty all but Satanic. "You will find yourself looking up at the sky," remarked one aid worker to another, "to make sure it's still there."
And yet--and yet. . . . .
We had good intentions in Vietnam, didn't we. Stop the commies. Guarantee the survival of democracy. "Bear any burden!" cried JFK at his inauguration.
It didn't end well, General Clark. Don't we all remember!
All I'm saying (at the end of the day) is: be careful. Be VERY careful. Be clear what your purpose is--your means--your goal. And then--yes! If the clarion call of duty is clear and unmistakable--
--go on in--
--with God's blessing--
--and the support of the American people.
5
Nope, taking the name of God in vain is anything but "moral courage". Everybody is personally responsible for their own opinions.
1
It's hard to believe Mike Pompeo took the same West Point oath as you General.
3
"The next year, in the midst of the Bosnian war, Bosnian Serb soldiers seized the United Nations-designated “safe area” of Srebrenica and massacred some 8,000 Muslim men and boys. The United States called on NATO for a response plan and renewed diplomatic efforts led by Richard Holbrooke, the assistant secretary of state, to end the fighting. Soon the Serbs struck at Bosnian civilians again, this time with a mortar attack on a crowded marketplace, and the Atlantic alliance responded with air power.”
“Three years later, the next chapter of Serb ethnic cleansing began, this time in a corner of Serbia known as Kosovo, the vast majority of whose inhabitants were Albanians. The Albanians fought back, and once again the Atlantic alliance was called upon to intervene.”
But though the claims regards Bosnia are largely accurate (albeit the US and Germany were backing various Muslim factions in Bosnia, likely with the aim of finalizing a break-up of Yugoslavia) there is no evidence of significant “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo. And the Clinton bombing was of Serbia was illegal under US law. Additionally the USA had demanded that NATO troops effectively occupy Serbia before the bombing started. So there’s a lot missing from this Clark justification for illegal wars.
Libya (destroyed as a functioning state in 2019) is a separate example of what Clark here calls “moral courage”.
Submitted May 23rd 9:28 AM Eastern
2
The article is a cruel joke considering our current circumstances. We have no moral compass left, so why rub this in our faces? We have killed tens of thousands innocent Arabs in our endless Mideast wars through bombings and ground action. We pardon war criminals for no good reason besides a crazy president. So stop with the sanctimonious editorials. As they used to say, "Talk to the hand!"
3
So----a tribute to Gen. Clark's moral courage.....
And the unnamed leaders who lack moral courage ? He can't mean Mr. Trump, who had the courage to move our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, to confront the murderous Iranian regime, to say "enough" to a Chinese dictator who puts ethnic Uighurs in concentration camps
1
@ras It took zero courage to move our embassy. Trump has shown that he has no courage by his actions for his whole life. Al Queda, ISIS, and the Taliban are all Sunni Muslims who were radicalized by Saudi Arabian sponsored Madrassas throughout the Muslim world. Iran has fomented violence in the Middle East through Hamas and Hezbollah but has not terrorized Europe, Africa, Asia, and the U.S. We were making progress toward a better relationship with Iran until Trump backed out of the multi-national agreement that Iran was complying with because Trump supports a corrupt, murderous Saudi monarchy. You think Trump gives a hoot about the Uighurs in China? Not any more than he cares about people of color wherever they are from.
1
Our experience in Vietnam influenced our inaction in the Cambodian genocide.
Somalia and "Blackhawk Down", likewise affected our inclination to engage in Rwanda.
The Balkans presented an opportunity to see how effective limited engagement, diplomacy and NATO could or would work in Central Europe. It did.
We failed the Cambodians and the Rwandans. There are always "reasons" but they are not always cloaked in truth, duty or honor.
2
Thank you General Clark for reminding us what is important amidst the flatulance that passes for leadership today. As President Trump said and he believes, “Power is fear.” And that is all it is when there is not morale structure compelling the power behind it.
4
“Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong,” the prayer goes, “and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice, and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.”
Would that Nancy Pelosi reads this prayer and follows its dictates. The time for compromise and hope for a "middle way" with Trump has long since past. She must act with courage, and set aside her political calculus and do what is right: impeach Trump.
12
This is a timely article by General Clark. At some time in the near future, American soldiers may well be given orders that conflict with their oath to protect the Constitution. Some may be told to fabricate evidence, as was done in the Gulf of Tonkin, or with Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Truth is the first casualty of war. Fitting, then, that General Clark reminds those in service of their obligation to protect it, and what their oath of allegiance demands of them.
No reading between the lines is needed here.
12
I have no doubt that Gen. Clark is correct in asserting that the consequences of inaction in Rwanda motivated engagement in the Balkans. But I also wonder whether the higher commitment of placing 20,000 troops on the ground in Rwanda vs airstrikes in the Balkans had something to do with it.
1
This is a high standard to achieve but the fact it isn't easy shouldn't stop the goal.
We're living in a world where expediency and looking the other way in the face of great evil are standard. we have individual heroes, but right now, were not a heroic nation--just one that's lost its way.
On the eve of a probable mission of sending 10,000 troops to the red hot Middle East, my sense of foreboding increases.
I get the feeling our leaders, who lack the moral fortitude to determine what this author maintains is the insight to know when and where our proper response should be, are simply moving around toy soldiers on a global map.
It's an invitation for disaster, and one I pray doesn't actually become one.
22
@ChristineMcM
Worth repeating
West Point’s Cadet Prayer:
“Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong... and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.
Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice, and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.”
2
Democrats desperately need to get very aggressive about Trump - and get on the ball.
If this was a Democrat, Republicans would have long since been impeached.
If a Democrat gave yesterday’s Rose Garden rant, Republicans would immediately organize a massive caucus wide protest that would go on day after day... calling for the President’s immediate removal through the 25th Amendment.
They would also start impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General.
They would call for nationwide protests until Trump was removed. They would immediately go to court. And it would ALL be under the banner of Patriotism and saving the country.
Instead, Nancy Pelosi held yet another sad little speech, saying she would pray for Trump - and resisted calling for impeachment yet again. The only person impacted by her finger wagging and hand wringing is Pelosi herself.
The power vacuum in Washington is now untenable.
Republicans never say “impossible.” They charge aggressively ahead on all legal and even illegal fronts. It’s why their power far exceeds their percentage of support.
Sadly, Democrats can’t find a way to say Yes about anything!
4
Why offer this reflection in this historical moment ?
In the fog of this moment, perhaps it’s best say what you mean. Social media has ushered in the death of the parable. Leaving important conclusions between the lines leaves them open to extraordinary distortion.
4
I am not sure what to make of this op-ed. At this time we have a President with no moral courage who has a propensity to bring us to the brink of war and abandon our allies. We have a US Senate with no backbone that is giving Trump a green light to start a war with Iran. Out foreign policy is focused on supporting authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Hungary and in an odd way North Korea. Our slanted polices toward Israel and unholy alliances have helped decimate the Palestinian people. We are criminalizing our border and inflicting death and suffering on people emigrating from counties where we played a role in causing them to emigrate by supporting illegal regimes and unfair trade treaties. Our environmental policies are encouraging future war and decimation as climate change begins to radically alters our economy and way of life.
Wherein do I see moral courage? And why focus on the past, when so much now is at stake. And just how instructive is this past in today's conflicts. Not to mention how selective the focus is.
17
I wonder. It is moral courage, or is it intellectual courage that our leaders need? We find ways to bypass the difficult or challenge our own views because we refuse to think. We can pretend we live up to our values because we refuse to reckon with them intellectually. So you can have reverse cases to those cited here, where we start a war in Iraq in the name of moral courage, for example, but we don't have the intellectual courage to reckon with what we would really have to commit to achieve our goal and what the risks really were. How many died and suffered as a result? Wasn't it in the name of courage and a willingness to sacrifice that we went into Vietnam, while failing to appreciate the Vientamese struggle for independence that was inspired by our very own! We didn't have the intellectual courage to challenge our view of the world and our view of Vietnam. In Rwanda, perhaps we were just WRONG. We didn't feel like committing troops to Africa, so we came up with a phony intellectual rationale for not doing so. We profess values, but we don't examine them or apply them with any intellectual integrity. We go on feelings, refuse to change our mind, and call THAT integrity.
18
@TvdV: It was a complete-no-brainer to just let the UN inspections establish whether or not Iraq had sworn falsely to the UN that it had complied with its disarmament mandates.
The bloody Republicans deliberately undermined the UN's credibility as supervisor of disarmament agreements.
3
@Steve Bolger exactly. What disturbs me the most about the argument here is that it defines the problem as not having the courage to make a decision you know is right, when the problem is often the arrogance in assuming you always know what is right—despite what even the most cursory examination would tell you. We're always appealing to feelings, left and right alike, because it makes us feel good.
2
We have so many challenges, particularly the senseless war in Yemen, and need leadership to fill a vacuum of transactional decision making at the top of the government. The urgency of this matter cannot wait until 2020, and the minority party should use it's bully pulpit to press the issue with all of its conceivable resources.
6
@Steve
Indeed. In the ongoing Yemeni war crimes we are no longer just bystanders while the horror ensues; we are actual participants by providing the Saudi Arabian side with the military intelligence and the mid-air refueling capacity for them to carry out their deadly attacks on both military as well as civilian targets. Yet we have the duplicity to condemn Syria's strongman Assad for doing the same thing in his country.
Meanwhile our elected representatives in Congress by and large sit on their hands and appear to be incapable of taking meaningful action, even as regards the Saudi butchery of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside their consulate in Istanbul. They would rather spend their time trying to score political points by attacking the opposing side rather than engage in formulating the meaningful legislation they were elected to do.
7
As an AFROTC cadet I remembered being considered barely leadership material. I was generally quiet, a string bean, and not of towering height: the antithesis of a typical leader. What I was, am, is smart, diplomatic, thick-skinned, and creative. Later, once I grew confident, I learned to speak up. Often, I found I was the lone voice of dissent who spoke calmly through criticism of a problem or of a better way. With time, I found my voice was listened to carefully: leaders listened. I never got the credit but I won a grudging respect. That, probably explains why AFROTC saw my potential before I did.
What your article fails to consider is that those who rise to power rise because they want it badly. They will do anything to hold it and they often don't know what to do with it but to hold it. The military more than any other organization has learned that there are different forms of power and different forms of leadership.
32
Sadly our leaders only seem to use their power when there is something to be gained (or lost) for themselves if they don't.
Morality doesn't play into it.
Our Dem . leadership has done a good faith effort in giving the Trump admin. and Republicans in congress a chance to "do the right thing."
But they refuse to-- time for the Dem's to use their power --even if it isn't "politically popular."
If they don't, they will be just as bad as the examples in this piece.
11
General Clark, thank you for your leadership. I supported your candidacy for president back in 2003-2004 and still wished you'd had won.
11
@Carol I did, too!
1
We lack the courage to be anything other than a profit motivated risk to the entire world. Our allies doubt our ethics and our morality to such an extent that it is doubtful that would easily be convinced to follow us again.
57
@Rinchino: We allow ourselves to be governed by charlatans purporting to read the minds of dead slavers.
2
@Rinchino
Exactly right
2
Having watched and done some analysis of all these conflicts since joining the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 1962, and later while at a Federally-Funded Research and Development Corporation, I cannot believe that rushing 20,000 U.S. troops into Rwanda amidst the killing of 800,000 people --- leaving aside the huge logistic problem of getting them into that inland country -- certainly not parachuting them in -- could have made much difference in the situation -- other than getting a lot of our soldiers killed, too.
5
@H Gaffney - Getting a lot of your soldiers killed hasn't stopped your country up till now. Drone technology seems more effective at reducing military casualties although it increases civilian deaths. Sadly we live in a time when living one's ideals at any level becomes a hinderance to "success".
6
@H Gaffney: China sent 1 million machetes to Rwanda.
1
Thats completely inaccurate. The inverse to drone is troops on ground and everything that entails or jet strike with limited recon. Either one increases prob of civ and mil deaths
1
Perhaps another example of moral courage would be to say what you actually mean. This column could be seen as an indictment of those enabling Trump, or as a call to invade Iran, Venezuela, or to directly confront China's growing military hegemony. Partisans of any of these views could with justification point to what Mr. Clark has written. To save civilians and get bad actors to stand down, military intervention must be clear convincing. I would say the same thing is true of intervening in political discourse.
25
@john lafleur,
It's not the military's responsibility to determine policy. It is there responsibility to provide insight, plans, estimates, and the muscle to do the job. Policy is supposed to come from Congress and recently the President. They in turn work for people. Remember what has been said about an "informed electorate."
We have seen journalism and the citizenship of people fade away.
Don't blame the military if they don't fight the war in a manner more suitable for CNN or Fox. Their job is to kill: period. To inflict so much pain that our enemies fear us. That is part of the dark art of diplomacy that republicans fall in love with and democrats fear --- making them look weak.
If you tune out, avoid the hard questions, or act on expediency you reap what you sow.
2
Thank you for these thoughts, General Clark.
Unfortunately, it is this type of thinking that led us to the horrendous mistakes in Vietnam (over two million killed and many more wounded for life) and Iraq (countless innocent citizens killed, a three trillion dollar war that left the middle east in a far worse position, and the US reputation in shambles).
Things that are clear after the fact are often difficult to understand in advance or as they are occuring.
24
@Carden I don't feel it was this type of thinking, it was the lack of this type of thinking. Read Bernard Fall.
1
@Carden The Viet-Nam war was as much a political decision based on internal US politics as anything else. LBJ ramped up the War so that Goldwater and the GOP wouldn't have him boxed in from the Right. Nixon sabotaged the peace process to defeat Humphrey. The War's raison d'etre was a creation of Cold War hawks who lacked knowledge of Vietnamese history in the twentieth century. Clark's "type of thinking" had almost nothing to do with getting the US into the War, although it may have prolonged public support for it because of the propaganda machine behind it.
5
who can argue with the guiding principles outlined by Gen Clark. Yet, we are fail every single day against this standard for a myriad of reasons. First our leadership in the White House and Congress operate in a blatantly self or party-interested manner routinely placing Country and People secondary to their own interests. Of course, it's all justifiable. We hear the excuses constantly. What good would it be for me to stand up and oppose xyz, I would lose and my strong moral backroom voice would be lost. Hogwash. The WH and Congress are the ultimate expression of domestic Realpolitik. The more difficult problem is that there is no consensus on what is right whether domestically or internationally. Is John Bolton right or should we negotiate a diplomatic solution? Is Democratic Socialism the solution to inequity or does it eat at the very soul of our country. The answers to what is right can only be sourced from a shared set of values and objectives. Our aspirations need to align or we will continue to be led by the immoral who use the power of party and politics to divide
13
Lemme solve some of this for you.
There’s no need for Deep Thought about John Bolton. John Bolton is a dangerous, unbright warhawk who’s only in our government because Donald Trump is a greedy, amoral fool who likes to act tough.
Inserting “analysis,” into the obvious isn’t morality. It’s an excuse for sitting on your tail.
2
Gen. Clark,
Thank you for this fine piece that instructs us so well. Your voice needs to be heard and I hope to hear more. Your experience and wisdom is inspiring but I would add some caveats. Power + action + knowledge = Courage, I accept but the equivalence does not work both ways. Is courage always moral? Don't the facts (which can be interpreted so differently depending on one's perspective) temper action? And in what direction? Moral courage is a union of attitude and assessment but what is moral is not an absolute. As a military strategist, is not retreat or non-engagement a sometimes worthy alternative? I suppose every moral assessment has its own strategy and action. Your examples benefit by hindsight which requires its own foresight, prediction and calculation. Finally, the inspiring Cadet Prayer with its admonition to "scorn compromise with vice and injustice" demands inherent, all-too-human judgments. This prayer most certainly applies to the cudgel of war, its devastation and our inherent hesitation in its application. I, honestly, cannot imagine the Courage required to engage in military action. Nor can I imagine doing so without the feeling of moral righteousness, the courage of the heart. Is it not the case that both sides in conflict embody their own moral righteousness?
5
Moral courage is what is needed now among Republican Senators. Trump has no courage but will use the reasoning of this essay to launch a military adventure. Luckily, Trump is unlikely to read it. John Bolton might and pass it on.
13
This essay could not have arrived at a more pivotal time in American politics. The simple, powerful concept of action based on the moral good shimmers like a distant mirage under Donald Trump's presidency.
If America has a soul, it is currently withering in a dark room somewhere under constant guard by a phalanx of lawyers threatening years of lawsuits to any potential visitor. The American people elected a president wholly unfamiliar with the concept of the moral good. If Donald Trump is remarkable in any way, I submit it is his complete lack of virtue.
Perhaps America will again, as a nation, act based on honorable principles. That will never be the case with the current leadership.
35
Words like, "truth, noble, and courage," represent the better parts of humankind striving to higher ideals it doesn't often attain. But the striving itself is crucial if we're to achieve the peace and universal harmony we all cherish above all else. The tragedy of the Trump era is embodied in a president for whom these words are mere noise, signifying nothing.
31
Thank you General Clark for your service to the United States and the key roles you played in helping prevent the death and torture of tens of thousands as the Serbs ran amok with their ethnic cleansing in the 90s. It was a horrific series of events that took place after Yugoslavia degenerated but would have been much worse - perhaps another Syria - without effective American intervention.
A thoughtful essay from a brilliant and compassionate mind. Power is supposed to uphold the human values that keep us decent - and bravo to the many many brave souls who uphold those ideals. In spite of everything and everyone else..
32
Thank you General Clark for your insight and your incredible service to America and the world. If only there were more people in power that would use moral courageousness in every act, no matter what the optics or politics are. Unfortunately that happens a lot less frequently than it should. A perfect example is the current occupant of the White House, who saw fit to separate children from parents at the border just to make a point. Hopefully this amoral chapter of American history will be over soon.
49
Great essay. Unfortunately, the white house and the Senate have lost any inkling of moral authority/moral power.
leaving American in a very sad state of affairs
139
@Sally McCart But we elected them. We are now learning what happens when the US electorate elects immoral and a moral leaders.
6
My father graduated West Point in 1945. Its motto, 'Duty, Honor, Country' was how he lived his life. It's unfortunate that more of our leaders don't exhibit the same traits.
38
A sobering reminder of the differences between political and military professionals and how their training and background influences policymaking. Thank you for your service, General Clark.
40
@Sunny
"A sobering reminder of the differences between political and military professionals"
I agree with your commendation of Clark but am wary of such generalizations. Consider, for example, Barack Obama (political) and Michael Flynn (military).
7
@Dawn ... As well meaning as any politician may be, in my opinion there's no relevant substitute for active duty military experience. That's one reason I am always wary of any President/Commander In Chief who has not served in the military.
2
@Sunny
What about two of the country's best "politicians"--or more respectfully, statesmen and presidents--Jefferson and Lincoln? Jefferson had no military experience, and Lincoln's only military experience was that of captain in a militia that never saw combat. I'd say each man was more than "well meaning."
2
General Clark, thank you for your continued service to our nation. The “Great” of today is a far, far lower and tawdrier version of what you describe. The absence of a great America is creating a long lasting impact on the rest of the world.
60
Since Nancy Pelosi is praying for Donald Trump these days, rather than using her own power to take action in the House, someone should share that Academy prayer with her.
Maybe it will give her the strength to get up and do what needs to be done, even if it is not easy or politically popular.
After all, what good is power if you do not use it for the nation's well being, rather than to just protect yourself politically?
180
@avrds What needs to be done is the painstaking process of building an ironclad case against Mr. Trump. That can only be done by exposing his wrongdoing using Congress' oversight powers in conjunction with the judiciary. Rushing into impeachment proceedings unprepared and without the backing of the courts might feel good, but it will only strengthen Trump's hand. The Charge of the Light Brigade may have made for stirring poetry, it accomplished nothing.
65
@Seldoc
I don't think any of the committee chairs are asking to rush to an impeachment vote, but rather want to open an inquiry so that they have the power of the courts behind their requests. Pelosi just says no.
Right now, Trump and his minions are simply laughing at Congress (literally in the case of Barr) and sending in legions of lawyers to stop any and all access to materials. Yes, the courts have weighed in their favor, but then Trump et al. simply appeal.
While Trump tweets and plays golf, and Pelosi prays and plays politics, the Constitution is being shredded before our very eyes.
17
@avrds There is a real difference between the situation in Rwanda in the '90s and the situation here now (besides the fact one involved actual mass murder, and the other, so far, only political malfeasance). That is, if Clinton had proposed military intervention in Rwanda and failed, the only difference in outcomes would have been a record of which politicians supported ending the genocide and which didn't. If Pelosi were to call for impeachment now, and it were to fail, it could energize DT's supporters and help ensure his reelection.
12
Thank you Mr. Clark for reminding us that that certain absolutes must be upheld. The lesson obviously applies to leaders in the Senate who are placing partisanship ahead of the good of the nation. It is right for the electorate to know the full extent of the President's attempts to obstruct justice, for example. It is right for the electorate to know if the President committed tax fraud with his Foundation; if he has financial entanglements that involve foreign nations (and the list could go on). Without strong oversight and investigative powers of Congress, it is too easy for an administration to hide wrong-doing., as in Watergate. It is not too strong a statement to assert we are in a constitutional crisis. While one party wants to sell us a line that "this is just politics" the other side appears to understand the fundamental assault on a system of checks and balances that has generally served us well since its inception.
155