McChrystal Article

James wrote:
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying, but why is it that people always want to quote the founders, as if everything that was relevent and applicable 235 years ago is still relevant and applicable today? As if the founders have some kind of hallowed moral and philosophical standing that we always need to look to? Those founders mowed down lots of Native Americans, and owned lots of slaves, too.

Doctor wrote:

James wrote:


Before he became president, what were Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief, and why did he think he deserved the job with no military experience? The media had the responsibility to ask those questions in 2008 but didn't.

(Speaking slowly, as if to a child):  The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.   

Just like all the gun nuts like to quote their constitutional 2nd amendment rights when the pinnacle of military technology in the late 18th century was a smooth bore musket that would take 30 seconds at best to reload.

Doctor wrote:
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child):  The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.   

Wasn't our first President a General?

vansmack wrote:

Doctor wrote:
(Speaking slowly, as if to a child):  The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military.   

Wasn't our first President a General?

(Speaking slowly as if to a child, again):  Yes our first president was a General; that doesn't mean that military experience is a prerequisite for the job, it just means that he happened to have it.

Doctor wrote:
(Speaking slowly as if to a child, again):  Yes our first president was a General; that doesn't mean that military experience is a prerequisite for the job, it just means that he happened to have it.

I was not pointing out that military experience should be a pre-requisite, but instead that if our founding fathers really wanted to "maintain civilian control" as you have eluded here, they would have banned military leaders from being President, which they didn't do.

Instead, what they did do was split control of the military between two of the three pillars of our Democracy, with oversight of the third.  What they wanted to point out was not that a civilian should be in control, but instead that the military has a place in our democracy, but is not as important as the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch.

It doesn't matter if they're civilian or a military person so long as they're elected by the people, cannot unilaterlaly declare war without authorization from Congress and maintains all decisions within the bounds of the Constitution, as reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Oh, and McChrystal did not f#ck up.  He wanted to get fired.  His interview and susequent comments indicate that he wanted to end his tenure in charge of the Afghan campaign and quitting was not an option for him.  This was a very calculated move leaving Obama no choice but to fire him.  To make this political is to join the silly grandstanding.

He had his say, he had his day, and the President is right to move on. 

If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.

And the idea that McChrystal wanted to get fired is ridiculous.  His staff wanted to get fired too, I suppose?  Now he is leaving the military.  Why not just resign?

A much more sensible explanation is that McChrystal dissed his civilian leaders once before in front of the press and got away with it (and he also got away with his role in the Tilman cover up).    He freely admitted lacking respect for Obama – so he thought that this too, he could get away with.  Reportedly when he came to the White House he didn't even have a resignation prepared.

Finally, the very few people who are hand-wringing over his departure seem to overlook the fact that the war itself is going badly.  Even if McChrystal hadn't made this gaffe he would have been eligible for removal.

Doctor wrote:
If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.

Now you're just being silly.  Once in the military, always in the military, especially if you reach the rank of General, which at least a dozen of our Presidents have.  I'm sure when they were elected to office, they simply "forgot" all of that military training now that they are "civilians" with the election.

The notion that you have to have military experience to be President is as silly as the notion that you become a civilian as soon as you're elected President if you come from the Military.

vansmack wrote:

Doctor wrote:
If you are serving in the office of President, you are by definition not active duty military, and therefore you are serving in a civilian capacity, even if you have a military background.

Now you're just being silly.  Once in the military, always in the military, especially if you reach the rank of General, which at least a dozen of our Presidents have.  I'm sure when they were elected to office, they simply "forgot" all of that military training now that they are "civilians" with the election.

The notion that you have to have military experience to be President is as silly as the notion that you become a civilian as soon as you're elected President if you come from the Military.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.  If you're not in the military, you are a civilian.    You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist.  You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.

I totally agree that mccrystal wanted to go. Its the only explanation for such an obvious mistake.  You don't get where he got without some political savvy.  It was a f*ck for a person in his position . . .but seemingly not for him personally.  So do we see Palin/McCrystal 2012?  'We won't quit on democracy . . .just on alaska and the armed forces'

Mobius wrote:
I totally agree that mccrystal wanted to go. Its the only explanation for such an obvious mistake.  You don't get where he got without some political savvy.  It was a f*ck for a person in his position . . .but seemingly not for him personally.  So do we see Palin/McCrystal 2012?  'We won't quit on democracy . . .just on alaska and the armed forces'

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure I read that McChrystal is at least a liberally socially and voted for Obama.

Doctor wrote:
You really have no idea what you're talking about.   If you're not in the military, you are a civilian.    You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist.  You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.

I'll get to the phones in a minute.

Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.

You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.

You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."

If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control?  If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.     

Now, going back to my original point, civilian vs military experience had absolutely no bearing on the founding fathers decision to make the President in charge of the armed forces.

The only thing that mattered was that the military was not one of the pillars of our democracy, that the President did not have autonomous authority without the consent of congress, and that the Supreme Court has oversight authority.

We have had great Presidents with substantial military experience and great Presidents with no military experience (as well as bad Presidents in each category).  The only thing that matters is that they were elected by the people and upheld the constitution when it comes to the military, or suffered the consequences when they didn't (whether that was criminal or lack of re-election).

vansmack wrote:

Doctor wrote:
You really have no idea what you're talking about.   If you're not in the military, you are a civilian.    You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist.  You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.

I'll get to the phones in a minute.

Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.

You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.

You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."

If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control?  If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.       

This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums.  The idea that you cannot be a President without a military background implicitly calls into question the concept of civilian control, even if a President is no longer in the military. 

Doctor wrote:
This is a nonsensical and circular argument of the sort one only finds on computer forums. 

I know.  That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.

Come on - it's fantastic that we have spent this much time agreeing on the what (military service should not be a requirement for President) but not on the why (founding fathers intentions).  Only on the internet and I would argue even more so, only on the 9:30 board.

I blame the Japan-Paraguay game.  If that game was even the slightest bit exciting I never would have clicked on this thread…. 

vansmack wrote:
I know.  That's YOUR argument and I was pointing out how circular it was.

Try speaking slowly to him, as if to a retarded adult.

Wow, the first topic i ever made on here…

I dont think it is necessary to have been in the military first to become commander and chief, but it helps.

So does being smart.

And being a great rhetorician.

And being a governor.

Or secretary of state. 

you know what helps generals succeed? not guzzling bud light limes in front of a journalist