Obama Out Of Step With Military
Sep 19, 2013 Political
The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and of the militia when it is called into federal service. It is an important marriage of the concept of civilian control of the military and was designed by our Founders to keep the military in check because the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.
Samuel Adams put it this way in 1768:
“Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”
And Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated:
“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”
The Founders established a Constitution that gave all three branches of government some portion of control over the military so that no one branch could use the military for its own agenda. For example, the Legislative raises and supports the Army and Navy and provides its funds and rules. It also has the authority to declare war.
The Executive enforces the rules established by the Legislative and has control over how they are used; the Commander in Chief commands them. These checks are supposed to keep us from rash decisions about war and quick use of our armed forces.
This has played out recently with the Syrian chemical agent use issue.
[note]The US effectively has a standing Army though the Constitution requires appropriations of monies not to last for more than two years (to provide the ability to dismantle the raised army). This is why the appropriations are supposed to happen every other year. As is the case with most things government, the process is a tangled mess that distorts the original intent of the Founders.[/note]
The Syrian issue has shown more than the Constitutional conflict. The crisis has also shown an uneasy relationship between Obama and the nation’s military leaders.
The military, while declaring it is prepared to execute any order given (I assume they mean any lawful order), has also expressed displeasure at a strike that would allegedly be punitive and have no clear goals. There is worry that things could escalate and require a larger response or the movement of troops into the area.
The article points out that there is a feeling among the leaders that the military has been burned with half measures. There is disgust over the way Iraq has been handled and there is concern over Afghanistan.
The military, in other words, has lost faith in its civilian leader.
This should come as no surprise as Obama (who appoints many people who feel as he does) is not a fan of the military. He is a typical liberal and has a dislike and a distrust of the men and women in uniform. He has never served and he has never been a leader.
There is weakness at the top and the military can see it.
It must have frosted many of our leaders to see Putin wax Obama’s ass over Syria. The military does not like to see a foreign leader’s footprint on its Commander’s ass.
While many people looked to Obama to lead them out of the desert and into the Promised Land they are now seeing that Obama cannot lead.
[note]“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future.” ~ George S. Patton Jr.[/note]
George Bush once said that history would make its decision about him.
Members of the military seem to bringing that sentiment home as many report that, unlike Obama, “…Bush had his stuff together.” They report that when he made a call, whether good or bad, at least he was making it.
History seems to have arrived sooner than one might have thought.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Obama took charge of people who did not want him to begin with and he has done nothing to boost their confidence in him.
They probably feel like I do. Obama sees the military as his pawns.
And they don’t think he knows how to play the game.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, commander in chief, constitution, distrust, lies, Military, Obama
He Is Not The Commander In Chief Of Civilians
Mar 5, 2013 Political
Unless one is in the military (or the militia of the several states called into actual service of the United States) the President of the United States is not that person’s Commander in Chief. The Constitution states the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (Article II Section 2) therefore he is not the CINC of civilians. He has plenty of civilians that work under him since he is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government including civilians who work for defense but he is their boss, not their CINC.
The chief public affairs official for the Army’s Joint Munitions Command, Stephen D. Abney, sent out a memo telling civilian employees that if they grant an interview to the press (regarding the sequester) they are reminded not to say anything that might be perceived as criticism of the Commander in Chief or any political party.
He did tell them that they should make it clear they are expressing their own opinions and are not speaking for anyone else which is good advice.
However, these people are free to express themselves, as private citizens (so they should make it clear they are not speaking for any agency), in any way they want. If they want to tell the press that it is not necessary to furlough people and that the only reason this is being done is to cause pain so Obama can get his way then they are free to do so.
If they want to blame Republicans or Democrats or both parties then they are free to do so.
The members of the military are not allowed to speak in such a fashion because Obama is their Commander in Chief but he does NOT hold that title over civilians.
I do not recommend these employees say outrageous things but if they feel like expressing their disgust at the lack of leadership in the White House and in Congress then they should certainly do so.
If I were one of them I would not speak to the press to begin with.
Most of them are Obama stenographers and it would be like teaching a pig to sing.
Besides, the regime has already posted its marching orders and they can’t have anyone going off narrative. Obama predicted dire circumstances and he can’t have anyone ruining what he has worked so hard to do.
He wants pain. The White House is closed to tours starting this Saturday because of staffing cuts due to the sequester. I find it hard to believe this happened because employees have to get a 30 day notice and that notice is not expected until 26 March (meaning furloughs start 26 April). It is about causing harm and inconvenience to get people riled up.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: commander in chief, constitution, Obama, President, public affairs, sequester, the imperial president
Wesley Clark: Hillary More Qualified than McCain on Military Matters
Mar 2, 2008 Political
General Wesley Clark, a man who has had his nose up the Clinton’s rear ends (he must be hoping for the SECDEF job) has made a completely asinine statement with regard to John McCain and Hilary Clinton. According to Clark, Clinton is better qualified to be the Commander in Chief by virtue of her jet setting around the world while First Lady than is McCain who actually served for several decades.
In the national security business, the question is, do you have — when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.
If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security. NRO
Now, according to Clark, the issue is having relevant experience to make the decisions at the top that have to be made. Clark believes that McCain had the wrong kind of military experience so he would not be good s the CINC. Hillary, on the other hand, would be wonderful because she has NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE. Instead, she gained her qualifications by visiting 80 countries while First Lady. General Clark was a military man and he believed that he had what it takes to be the CINC. That is why he ran for the presidency in the last election. However, using his criteria, every First Lady in modern history would be more qualified than Clark, McCain or any other military man simply because they jetted around to other countries. By this standard, Laura Bush is just as qualified as Hillary so we should ask her to run because she is evidently more qualified than McCain and a hell of a lot more pleasant than Clinton.
I wonder if this jackass ever thinks before he speaks. He was with that dipstick Captain at the Kos convention trying to intimidate a soldier who happened to attend while in uniform. The soldier was not participating in a rally or supporting a candidate and Clark was unaware of military regulation. Now he is saying that McCain’s military experience makes him less qualified than Hillary who has absolutely no military experience and has spent her life with a general loathing of the military. She treated the military working in her husband”s White House horribly and somehow Clark thinks this makes her more qualified than McCain.
I am not saying McCain would be the best president in the word or that he does not have flaws. I am sure there are issues the other candidates might have a better grasp of than he but one thing is absolutely certain. John McCain has more experience than both of the others put together and he has far more experience needed to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. John McCain has forgotten more about the military than these two will ever know so if they want to pick on him they should try something that actually makes sense.
Having Wesley Clark make stupid statements about the right kind of military service is not helpful and should Hillary miraculously win and decide that Clark will be the SECDEF we would have to question any statement he made because he has already proven he is incompetent and, like the Clinton’s, will say anything to get a win.
Wesley Clark is a moron who has no clue as to what it takes to lead as demonstrated by his ridiculous statements regarding McCain and Clinton.
Tags: clark, Clinton, commander in chief, lies, partisan hack