Posted on 01/13/2009 12:17:36 PM PST by PurpleMan
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday that senior officers must work to prevent the militarization of American foreign policy, and he urged generals and admirals to tell civilian leaders when they believed the armed forces should not take the lead in carrying out policies overseas.
Adm. Mike Mullen, who as chairman is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, also called for more money and personnel to be devoted to the civilian agencies responsible for diplomacy and overseas economic development.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Or a... Clinton/Obama liberal, One-worlder, Perfumed-prince, State Department-esque wannabe?
its not their job to refuse orders, but its OK to say thats not a military mission, I guess. Obama could always send his Civilian Militia thang
Does that answer your question?
It means he’s using his office for expounding his political views, which at least in theory he should in no wise be doing. The military has a job to do, and making policy statement isn’t it.
An opening shot against any new missions to say Darfur or whereever.
Madelin Albright abused the heck out of the military as Sec of State, by sending small, unsupported detachments of them to every corner of the planet, doing every petty chore the State Department didn’t want to do.
One of the first things that W. Bush had to do was recall tens of thousands of soldiers from hither and yon.
The Joint Chiefs are the president's "tech support," in matters military. They are not vested with command authority, but serve as the CinC's primary advisors on propriety and impropriety of the military's uses as well as it's capabilities and limitations. In that sense they do have a prinicple role in the formulation of policy, but their actions are doctrinally, nothing more than recommendations that need the approval or disapproval of the president in matters of execution, and congress when it comes to appropriations.
Just great.
IMO, the only right a military leader has is to resign if he doesn’t agree with a presidential directive. He does not have the constitutional right to tell the president that he is out of line and that he will not follow his orders.
Mullen seems to be advocating a breach in legal authority.
It has become quite evident that our presidents should try to make sure what these general’s beliefs are, before promoting them to positions of overall authority. Some of these loons seem poised to go off the reservation.
Mullen should be replaced.
Right, their job is to advise, so whats the point of the article?
I don’t know the context of this, but in the bigger picture, I think he is correct.
The military takes a bigger role, exactly because it is efficient, strong, and has a strong culture and ethos.
This is compared to civilian arms of Government which are not efficient, fractious, default to politics, and do not have a strong culture or ethos.
Therefore, in a dangerous world, the US military will, by default, fill the vacuum that civilian institutions like Congress or the State Department can not manage. I believe this is what he is saying.
Rome acheived greatness through use of its Legions, but eventually the Legions became Rome.
I don’t know. I quit looking for the point in NYT articles years ago.
So it basically says the JCOS needs to do its job. From what I gather, are they implying that it did not do its job under W?
So it basically says the JCOS needs to do its job. From what I gather, are they implying that it did not do its job under W?
Mullen should be investigated and replaced. Wasn’t he supportive of not using the military option in Iran?
I haven’t followed the guy closely. I’m not sure.
Doesn’t it say all that needs to be said, that this guy is Bush’s selection to be the Joint Chief of Staff?
Seriously, this just lays it out there for folks to soak up. Truly one of the saddest days in this nation’s history...
I used an improper title. I should have said he was the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff.
And it HAS been a big problem that U.S. government agencies have failed to take care of their area of responsibility in Iraq, leaving the military to pick up the slack. (Some people in the State Dept. in particular deserve harsh punishment for this, IMO). It's obvious to me that this is what Adm. Mullen is speaking to. Was he out of line to do so? That question is probably above my paygrade.
Fire that sucker. He must be a covert left winger if he wants to give money from the defense of this nation to the non working civilians in the government.
OK. How about the LA Times?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mullen13-2009jan13,0,3724087.story
The AP?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLh4sEtN-xprzIpHIUCKL5WsQKhQD95LVKBG0
AFP?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jJNjwVNLwQsvoCC6nOCfR07pV2uA
WaPo?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011202964.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.