Wes Clark Says the GM Bailout is Good for National Security

In his op-ed in the NY Times, former Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, retired 4-Star General Wesley Clark says What’s Good for GM Is Good for the Army:

AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative.

When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America’s greatest strength wasn’t its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy.

He then discusses the changing face of military defense spending saying that supersonic jets were ‘sexier’ and we therefore started paying less attention to improvements of ground vehicles…

But in 1991, the Persian Gulf War demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers.

In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.

Oh, Wes, you’re good. I’ll give you that. Who else would have come up with that one?

More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need.

Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry.

No one could ever doubt Wes Clark’s deep love and dedication to the Army and to the troops who serve and sacrifice for our nation.

And I’ve got to hand it to him, he sure goes to bat for the Democratic Party. They are making their argument for the bailout of the auto industry and General Clark has made one of his own.

A man with 34 years of military service and more medals, knighthoods and honors from the U.S. and around the world than you could possibly pin on any one chest, like most in the Military he was an Independent during his long career, remaining neutral politically to better serve the current Commander in Chief, regardless of party. He retired in 2000, and in 2003, declared as a Democrat.

Though he hasn’t been with the party long, he’s certainly making up for lost time. Aside from his own Presidential candidacy in 2003-4, since then he has been campaigning tirelessly for down ticket Democrats, criss-crossing the country and making his case, using his political action committee, WesPAC, for the purpose.

Noble as that might be, I was infuriated that after his strong support and endorsement of Hillary, once the primary was forcibly brought to an end by cowardly super delegates bowing to pressure from Ms. Pelosi et al, Wes would once again take up the mantle of good soldier and good Democrat, preaching party unity and stumping for the inexperienced, disingenuous, and now, President elect, Obama.

Lo and behold, here is General Clark, first in his class at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar, once again chowing down on an extra bowl of Wheaties to think up an argument on behalf of the Dems’ position re the auto industry bailout. I have to say it is creative, if nothing else, and he does make a very good point.

But he conveniently ignores part of the reason the industry is in this mess to begin with – they have neglected and buried alternative technologies up until recently and were slow to embrace hybrids and buried the electric car, instead choosing to make Escalades and one big gas guzzling monstrosity after another. Cafe standards, anyone?

Uh, now they are not selling so well. And under the premise that we would be “helping the troops” we should now go bail them out?

While I would do whatever possible to help those brave souls putting themselves in harm’s way, once again, I feel we are being blackmailed into overlooking the wrongs perpetrated by the companies that got us into this horrid situation. Backed into a corner now, they tell us, we have no choice but to pony up for this, and other bailouts. When does it end? Who will ever have to answer for putting the American taxpayer in such a spot in the first place?

To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit’s goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country’s transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad.

On this point, Wes Clark and I wholly agree. In his capacity as a foreign policy commentator with various networks over the years, Clark always talks about the need to offer “a combination of carrots and sticks” to enforce performance.

Well I have had enough of bailouts in which we offer up all the carrots but don’t wield the stick first. We need to get assurances and policies in place that the industry, bank, or institution to be bailed out will have better oversight and act in our best interests – not to continue their reckless practices. If indeed, it is advisable to bail them out at all.

I am certainly no expert in this particular field, so I hope you will pardon my dust. But as a concerned citizen and taxpayer observing this situation and the debacle of our other bailouts this year, I can’t say that I have any faith that any transformation, accountability or oversight will happen in re the auto industry either, and therefore wonder at the wisdom of doing this.

General Clark closes with the following:

This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security.

Get it right? Yes, Wes, as usual, your heart is in the right place, but since the powers that be in the corrupt Democratic Party seem no more anxious to see you, a person of integrity, in a position of leadership, any more than they wanted Hillary Clinton there, who do you think is going to oversee that this is no “giveaway” and that we are now going to make Detroit follow up on their historic opportunity to “get it right?”

I never believe that the ends justify the means, so, no, I am not happy with our President-elect, even though that means we have Democratic leadership once again. By the same token, our fortunes are tied to his success in putting the right people and policies in place and figuring out how to govern effectively — if indeed that is possible. I don’t like having to make a decision from a place of desperation.

General Clark has more faith than I do that this action will lead to a positive outcome.

Is he right? What say you?