Reply #59: Here's what I think people don't get about Clark

[diamondsoul]

and I don't agree with it but it does make sense-

We're talking about a Career Army man here, one of the top ranking military men in the country for a long time. For him now to stand as a civilian and say that something within the military training structure is inherently bad would be the same as saying his entire career was inherently bad. He doesn't believe that and he's not going to say anything that might imply it.

He isn't going to withdraw from Iraq anytime soon should he be elected. He isn't going to thoroughly condemn the invasion (which is not to say his statements so far haven't been properly critical) because to do so would mean saying his colleagues, men and women identical to what he once was, can't be trusted to make decisions to deploy our troops for the right reasons. He'll never allow the United States to "lose" a military conflict and he won't say anything that might bring that about, either. It's loyalty to the organization known as the United States Army, and to all the branches of military services, frankly.

Is this making sense at all? My view of all this is pretty well neutral having been an Army brat all my life and now an Army Ntl. Guard spouse. It can be a good thing to have this kind of loyalty to the organization in a soldier, but I'm not convinced it's a good thing to have in a President.