THIS STORY CONNECTING WESLEY CLARK WITH THE WACO DEBACLE is getting a fair amount of attention. Goodness knows that “debacle” is the kindest term for what happened at Waco, and that there’s blame to go around, but Clark’s role here seems to have been rather minimal, and unless there’s a lot more to this story than meets the eye — and I don’t think there is — efforts to tar him with responsibility for that disaster seem rather unfair to me.

The real question — as it seems to be again and again — is why the people who were responsible at the FBI and elsewhere weren’t fired.

UPDATE: This AP story on Fox News is calling Clark’s role “limited.” That seems right to me.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s an insider email on Clark’s role at Waco. Hit “more” to read it, as it’s a bit long.

Here’s the letter:

For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark’s “involvement” in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark’s role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality. Indeed, your assessment about General Clark’s participation in the Standoff and its aftermath is absolutely correct: he played a peripheral role, at most.

I was General Clark’s staff judge advocate at the 1st Cavalry Division. As such, I was his legal advisor and provided advice about military support for the FBI at Waco. In addition, I briefed the 1st Cav’s tank crews before they departed Fort Hood.

The 1st Cavalry Division received orders from its higher headquarters – III Armored Corps and Fort Hood – to provide certain equipment to the FBI for its use at Waco. I learned the FBI had made a request for equipment to the Department of Defense, which ultimately sent it through Army channels to Fort Hood – the Army installation closest to Waco. The request was consistent with statute (10 U.S.C. § 372), Department of Defense directive, and Army regulation, and I advised General Clark (or, more particularly, his Chief of Staff) of that fact.

At the direction of the division’s Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division’s tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI’s Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office’s written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, but I believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a “non-issue.” Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law

Interesting.