This isn’t to present a view of mine, just to ask a few questions I have been thinking about lately. I remember when there was a time when society, including politicians, put their trust in the generals running the military campaign at hand. Folks used to say, we should listen to those in the field, and follow their advice for example. I am wondering, and throwing out for a topic of discussion, do you think politicians and citizens in general still feel this way?
Do we place faith and belief in the opinions expressed by military leaders?
What qualifies a politician to know more about a military situation than the military?
Why do you think things have gotten to the place they are in this type of situation?
Is there a danger to a weaker military in regards to respect of the populace?
Do we place faith and belief in the opinions expressed by military leaders?
We should up to a point that they prove themselves to be wrong, untustworthy, or incompetant. Lincoln canned McClennan for incompetance and Truman canned MacArthur for insubordination.
What qualifies a politician to know more about a military situation than the military?
Unless they themselves have served they dont. But our Constitution DOES give the President authority over them. Most of the time this has worked well. It has only been recently that politicians have interferred to the detriment of the mission itself. Viet Nam and Somalia come to mind here.
Why do you think things have gotten to the place they are in this type of situation?
Im not sure who exactly you mean by "they" here and exactly which "type of situation". If you mean the administration's management (either excessive or lack thereof depending on one's pov) of this war, I believe they grossly underestimated the forces needed, but are now doing a better job of giving Patreus what he needs.
Is there a danger to a weaker military in regards to respect of the populace?
There will always be trade-offs when funding or deploying of our military. It's an age old question. Guns or butter? When the election of those in charge of the funding (Congress) and the deploying (the President) are part of the equation, the populous is axiomatically involved. Granted it's a dysfunctional system at best, but it's the best alternative available (not counting making Tight-Waist the benevolent Dictator for life, actually just give me 8 years, it will all be better I promise!).
Last edited by Tight-Waist; 04-10-2008 at 04:41 PM..
Folks used to say, we should listen to those in the field, and follow their advice for example. I am wondering, and throwing out for a topic of discussion, do you think politicians and citizens in general still feel this way? Do we place faith and belief in the opinions expressed by military leaders?
Not as much. In part, because we are less trusting of authority in general (no pun intended), and in part because the role of the military leader has been more politicized, and in our age of political polarization, where political figures are constantly under attack, they too are under attack. Not that military leaders haven't been political figures in the past; they have. However, maybe they are now, more than ever. Our changing media might have something to do with this.
I saw an intelligent college student on a local public TV show recently (the issues was whether baby boomers were leaving an unfair debt to other generations), as she made a comment like "We don't know what to believe"--which I took to mean, we are all slogged by competing points of view. As Arthur Miller said in a TV interview on or around 1996, "we've lost a certain structure" (in society).
What qualifies a politician to know more about a military situation than the military?
The citizenry of the U.S. controls military policy. The military carries out that policy. I don't know if this is helpful, but compare it to a modern corporation. The legislator is on the board of directors, tasked with directing the policies of the corporation. The general is a manager, tasked with carrying out the business of the corporation.
Why do you think things have gotten to the place they are in this type of situation?
Political polarization.
Is there a danger to a weaker military in regards to respect of the populace?
If you're asking whether our military is weakened because generals are called on the carpet or criticized, I don't think so. I don't think there's a danger anyway.
Just to add, I think I saw a poll from a couple years ago, that showed military leaders were one of the more trusted figures, and I'd guess that still holds true. If you watch these guys on TV, I think they by and large represent themselves very well. And this is no accident. They're all career public servants who rose in the ranks. Although there is a good deal of politicking at the flag (general) level, they didn't get to where they're at without demonstrating a high level of competence along the way. Contrast to, say, Alberto Gonzalez, who probably was appointed to AG because of his loyalty to Bush. And he looked like crap in the hearings before Congress--at least the ones I've seen.
How are we to have faith in them at present when two of them who have said things counter to what Bush wants us to hear have been canned from their duties? Then, Petreus (sp?) comes along, and curiously enough, even before he was to give his first testimony to tell us how the surge was going everyone within Bush's ranks and his traveling chorus on the radio were already applauding what Petreus was going to say. How did we know what he was going to say beforehand? Hmmm..
That's why I'm presently very skeptical and cautious and am not so sure that, in the end, moveon.org could have a valid claim.
__________________
UNI Panthers...23 Consecutive West Regional Titles!!
UNI Panthers...Back On The All-American Podium Again!!
My ignore list: Cyclone85; skipster; tight-waist; Ignatius J. Reilly.
I personally believe in trusting the Generals. Their allegiance is to their country and men/women, not to the political party in control. (though some do get political especially after they leave the military)
If you look at General Petreus he moved up the ladder during under both Democratic and Republican controlled White house, as do most high ranking military officers.
Although they have no allegience to any party, the generals arguably have some allegience to the President, for he is their boss. If I were a general, I would feel a duty to follow the President's direction, whether I felt it proper or not. That's part of military culture, at least from my experience. If I found the situation intolerable, I would likely retire. What I would not do is criticize the President while I was still in uniform.
I sort of misunderstood one of Furches' questions the first time around. I believe he was asking whether we could trust what the generals told us, for example, about the situation in Iraq (rather than whether they were trustworthy in general). Again, I think we have to remember the overall picture: they are not policymakers, but they are being asked to carry out policy (which can include making a lot of decisions)--which means they are operating in the framework of carrying out policy--and not in the role of making independent political assessments. So, without discounting their veracity, I think you have to take their testimony with a grain of salt. For example, if I (as citizen policymaker) felt it was morally wrong to engage in war where there was not a clear objective (or the objective was untenable), that might be given more weight than some general's opinion that operations were "working" (toward an unspecified goal).
The constitution was very specific in putting a civlians in charge of the military. The President and the Secretary of Defense are the two highest in the military chain of command. Politicians should be getting advice from their top military guys and using their judgement to make decisions.
There are plenty of times in history where Presidents went against the advice of the top military and I was the right thing to do. During the early 1950's Cold War there were Generals who wanted to make a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union while we still had a big lead in Nucear Missles.
And to answer a question directly, I do not think the US is in any danger of having a weak military. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on Military (I remember reading this somewhere and it sounds believable, but don't ask me to quote my source)
General Petreas was given what General Shinseki wanted and called for. Shinseki got the can because he refuted what Rumsfeild said not what Bush said. It was Bush's downfal to not listen to Shinseki and listen to Rumsfield. I believe that Generals or any military personel have two goals 1. Complete the mission 2. come home and you could flip flop those two. They know they have to achieve the goal but the most important factor is bringing everyone home alive. I these arent the Commanders priorities then they need not be in command.
Trusting Generals 
Linear Mode
