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.
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.
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.
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.