There is nothing “political” about Wesley Clark’s testimony at The Hague.

Wesley Clark is a Democratic presidential hopeful and he also happens to be a former Army general and NATO commander. His recent status reminds us of the importance of separating politics and duty and amplifies how quick some are to blur those lines in today’s climate of instant communication and “analysis.”

Clark told a war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, this week that then-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic knew in 1995 about a planned massacre that killed thousands of Muslims. Clark offered two days of dramatic testimony against Milosevic. It was the first confrontation between the two men since a NATO bombing campaign in Serbia in 1999 led to the end of the war in Kosovo.

Bosnian Serbs allegedly murdered 7,000 Muslims during the 1995 attack on Srebrenica during the Bosnia war. It was considered the worst war atrocity in Europe since World War II. Clark said Milosevic later told him that Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb general who conducted the attack, had outlined the campaign to Milosovic in advance.

Milosevic, 61, under indictment for war crimes, faces 66 charges tied to the 1990s war in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. His hands appear to be bloodied by many other war atrocities.

It was not long before opponents of Clark began to charge him with “politicking” because of his appearance at The Hague. What choice did he have? So he is running for office. He still is an accomplished man with a great deal of expertise in military affairs. He has the ability to testify in a case against one of the major villains of our time. Who else should be called?

Regardless of his views on anything, politics or otherwise, Clark is a key figure in the Milosevic trial and must be heard. He is open to criticism for his views on issues, his record in and out of the political arena, just about anything else that opposing office-seekers and their backers choose. But it is wrong to contend that he is “politicking” in the Milosevic case.

Clark is the first presidential candidate and the first former head of NATO to testify at a war crimes tribunal. It would be different if he were testifying purely for political gain. Who else was head of NATO at the time in question?

The efforts to denigrate Gen. Clark on this basis are childish at best.