So what happens when different elements of the military establishment are pushing for different things? Do you listen to whoever you talk to first? Or last? do you flip a coin?
Last roll of the dice: 34k extra troops for Afghanistan
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
So what happens when different elements of the military establishment are pushing for different things? Do you listen to whoever you talk to first? Or last? do you flip a coin?
sophie
Break My Heart
MobBoss said:
The possibilities for corruption abound when you get a politician blindly following every piece of advice from the military they get.
The best option (and what I'm assuming Obama did) is to listen to a large array of opinions across multiple specialities (not just military), and from there deliberating on the matter and deciding for himself what the best option available is.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
good, it is time we got the fight really starting instead of being on the back burner
What I think we need is massive engineering, building infrastructure so the Afghanis love us
I have supported Afghanistan, we got into it for the right reasons so we should see it though, showing American ingenuity is still strong and succeeding where others have failed
What I think we need is massive engineering, building infrastructure so the Afghanis love us
I have supported Afghanistan, we got into it for the right reasons so we should see it though, showing American ingenuity is still strong and succeeding where others have failed
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
First of all, you didnt answer my question in regards to a military state. Defend your comment - if you can.
Secondly, and this is just a guess mind you, but maybe you should listen to those with the most military experience...like the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Or at least give their advice some priority.
Who said anything about blindly following? I know I didnt. Apparently you think this is a world of extremes. Its not.
Given Obama's military experience (i.e. NONE) what makes you even think he even knows what the 'best option available' is?
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
So who should decide?
I didn't say anything about a military state.
I just think a president should listen to multiple sources and decide between them, that's not exactly an outlandish or controversial position, especially compared to your initial assertion that using their own judgement is a bad idea.
And your amendment to that position doesn't work either... you can't just stump for whoever's got the most service years, sometimes "experience" is just another word for "stuck in the past" or "set in their ways". And besides, do you really want a president who just automatically does what some other person tells them?
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Why would they do that, when they've got perfectly good "shop" set up in Pakistan? Why should we care whether their caves and obscure villages sit on one side of the border or the other? I think the idea of them setting up a "base camp" out in the open somewhere is pretty much outmoded. They might as well paint targets on their chests.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
They would do it because government institutions are weaker in Afganistan and were NATO to pull out a sympathetic government to the Islamic terror would probably come to power. This cannot be said of Pakistan, where the government that is in power is relatively stable and strongly anti-Taliban/AQ and as such is not such a stable place to run an international terror cell.
I'm not saying that they actually set up base camps around the place. But given the opportunity of operating in Afghanistan and having the chance to influence the coming to power of another sympathetic government there in the absence of NATO would be a hell of a lot easier.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Well, hopefully the President since he's kinda given that constitutional authority
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
But if he has no military experience then that means he's a commie?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, the President should still decide, but only after getting advice from the Joint Chiefs. And since Obama has no military experience, my point was I didnt want him making military decisions without that advice.
Kara did.
When they have zero military experience, yes, using their own judgement for a military matter would be a bad idea.
Do you disagree?
And sometimes 'experience' means they have the best ability to address an issue. Its what experience means.
But no, I dont want a President who does that and I never said Obama should do that. But I do want a President who is wise enough to know his limitations in his own experience, and seek advice accordingly.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Mobby,
By looking at the photos of all the Afgan strategy meetings, it seems that Obama was meeting with Dod And JC staff, so he obviously was getting intel from them.
By looking at the photos of all the Afgan strategy meetings, it seems that Obama was meeting with Dod And JC staff, so he obviously was getting intel from them.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
He did get that advice. So your point is that you approve of Obama's actions.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I have no doubt he did. If you follow the thread, you will see what earlier point I was addressing.
Sigh. See above.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I would think it wouldn't matter how much military experience the president had. He should always ask all his advisors, both military and civilian, before making such critical decisions. It is basic common sense.
You seem to think that merely serving in the military gives anybody who does so an amazing insight into both military and foreign affairs. History has shown that is clearly not the case. It has typically shown just the opposite with a few rare exceptions, such as Washington and Eisenhower.
Link to video.
But, of course, despite Eisenhower's dire warnings about the danger the military presents to modern society, those warnings have been largely ignored, especially by many who have ever served in the military or even those who work in the military-industrial complex.
Our founding fathers were quite wise to assure that the military was always controlled by an elected official, and they were both ultimately controlled by Congress since they were given the power to even declare war as well as vote to fund those operations. While most of the generals in the military are indeed experts at killing others, they typically show little or no sense whatsoever about when to use such powers, and even more importantly when not to do so.
Was there a single military talking head on any of the cable news shows who claimed the US should not invade Iraq or Afghanistan until all other approaches had failed?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I agree.
Not at all. But I do tend to think that some military experience gives more insight than someone with no military experience what-so-ever.
I mean, you are a great example of that. Your lack of military insight shows quite well in a lot of these threads, and you get destroyed by military veterans in those discussions. Would you presume to have more insight than a miltary veteran into things military? I think it would be laughable for you to do so.
But no by google apparently.
Happily, thats not the case currently in Afghanistan. Just in case you didnt realize it...we have been fighting there for a few years.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
The Pakistani government is not "anti-Taliban", they're "anti-Pakistani-Taliban". Toward the Afghan Taliban, they have a mixed, on balance more favorable relationship. In 2005, the Pakistani ISI was funding some Afghan Taliban elements and giving them weapons. Of course, they denied it at the time, and they continue to deny doing it now. Certainly the elected Pakistani leadership would rather they didn't, but their control over the military and security branches is questionable.
I think that if NATO announced a fixed timetable for pull-out, the current Afghan government would negotiate with those elements of the Taliban and insurgency that can be negotiated with. Al-Qaeda and its closest allies would not negotiate, but enough probably would to make a workable coalition. Of course, this means that opium production would have to be given a wink and a nudge, and oppression of women would flourish in the regions where such has always been the norm.
The question is how many of our soldiers' lives do we want to spend in an effort - probably futile IMHO - to prevent that.
So aside from vague attempts at insinuating that too much free-thinking has been going on (despite the fact that the end result was basically what many advisors suggested), what the hell evidence do you have that the current president has acted in any way other than what you say they should? Did he not seek advice?
You said this:
I am not sure I want a president with absolutely zero military experience 'thinking for himself' where something like Afghanistan is concerned.
This is a meaningless position based on nothing other than a reflexive "Obama is wrong" reaction to any situation. It's lunatic a priori reasoning based on nothing but that assumption.
Do you just say things with no context, with no concept, conception, or regard for how you directly contradict your own assertions over the course of a mere 5 posts? you went from saying "Obama shouldn't think for himself" to "Obama should listen to people and decide the course" over the space of 5 posts. Do you even care how ludicrous your positions become when you just cheaply grab for the nearest argument crutch even if it undermines the others? Are you just in this for mindless contradictory gainsaying? Does self-contradiction mean nothing to you?
You've given us no evidence that presidential decision-making has been abnormal, no evidence that expert advice has not been listened to, no evidence that a unilateral decision was taken. All you've given us are vague, unsupportable insinuation that some arbitrary, Mobboss-drawn line of "too much independent thinking" has been crossed.
So what did you give us? The sum total is precisely this: "experience is good" and also "he did this because of opinion polls" a bit earlier, like that's a clever point. This second thing is just stupid petty bitterness to reconcile the fact that a leader you don't like did something you think is a good idea.
But as for the first: aside from me pointing out that this is not automatically or axiomatically true, what the hell do you think this point means? What the balls is, in your mind, a rebuttal to "experience is good"? Of course it is, but that's an argument ina vacuum and says nothing about how it should dictate policy. You can't prove points with facile, truistic, meaningless assertions like "experience is good". It's like saying "peace is good" as though that's a policy and not a motherhood statement.
The experience point was built on the facile "too much free thinking! ...even though Obama broadly made a decision similar to what generals wanted" argument. Where did Obama disregard "experienced" advice? Even if he hadn't agreed, with everything certain generals said, how is that wrong? If your position is not just the facile assertion that "experience is good" but rather that experienced advice should be agreed with because it's experienced... then it's not advice, it's a command or instruction. There's no middle ground there - either it's advice to be considered or it's a command to be obeyed.
Every indication is that what has occurred exactly the sort of considered, listening-to-different-positions thinking that everyone agree should be undertaken, has been undertaken here. You told us he should "seek advice accordingly", so how has that not been done? What the hell are you pissing and moaning about, beyond the fact that Obama is president?
If you want to be taken seriously as doing anything other than obsessive, poorly-articulated, carping, question-begging hackery, you have to give something other than "thinking for himself is bad", since you've subsequently directly contradicted yourself by telling us that making decisions based on multiple sources of advice is a good thing.
What did Obama do wrong here? Give us some shred of evidence that your position is more than just an a priori "Obama is wrong" position and attempt to reason from there. Particularly because you agree with the decision and have merely been attacking the self-defined "poll-based" or "too much independent thinking" reasoning for the decision, reasoning you've used basically to justify continued opposition to a leader you don't like even though he agrees with you.
Put up or shut up, and if you can't put up more than this spurious, self-contradictory reasoning, then just stop carping against your commander in chief. Where the hell is your patriotism?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
People take this out of its context so often and I'm not surprised you're one of them. Here's what Eisenhower also said in his Farewell Address.
We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration...
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
Here is what Eisenhower said immediately after the point where the video ends.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite...
So what was Eisenhower's real concern? Was it Boeing and Lockheed or was it federal enthusiasm to throw money at research projects without restraint? (P.S., the defense budget was around 10% of GNP during Eisenhower's terms and consumed nearly two-thirds of discretionary spending. Both have since declined Eisenhower's oft-misrepresented speech.)
Similar threads
