Resize Text: 
Full text article
| Winter 2008 CommentsComing Soon: A Crisis in Civil-Military RelationsWhen Bill Clinton won the presidency in November 1992, few could have anticipated that his first crisis would be a full-blown clash with the armed forces, unhinging his administration even before it took office. His, after all, was to be a domestic presidency. Full text articleYou have forgotten the youth of america and how they percive the the outcome of the military/civilian conflict. They are the bodies that must fill the military ranks of the not too distant future. FOR WHAT CAUSE! Have we taken a measure of patriotism among our youth as thet view world around us in the context of the uncertintity caused by the clash! This has been and alway's be a continuing problem in this country. I served for over 26 years in the service prior to retiring after my last deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our elected officials truly don't get it and never will. I served under Presidents Carter through our current Commander in Chief. I thought this article started out strong but petered out about halfway through. It makes a few good points in the beginning, but quickly diffuses into second-tier issues. The real problem is establishment of the Department of Defense, but that should be the subject of another article. This is an interesting article. There is definitely a potential for civil-military relations to crumble as this article describes. But, the author asserts that military has remained largely unchanged since the end of World War II. While the independence and power of the services are still strong, I disagree. The author did not touch on Goldwater-Nichols, which I believe is something that he cannot omit from the discussion he provoking. One of three very different people will occupy the White House in 2009. Sen. McCain, with his long relationship with the military, a decorated war veteran, Barack Obama, a complete unknown in military oversight, and Hillary Clinton, who has a history, an antagonistic one. There is only a marginal difference between the three according to the author. Really? Why even bother with the election if only marginal differences ensue? There are real issues with civil-military relations. If you can't even see the differences between the major candidates, you're very unlikely to get anything more difficult right. The inability for Americans across the board to endure for the long-haul is astounding. Sadly this includes many within the senior leadership of our military. Those advocating gays in the military seldom address that any change will require a change of well thought out military law and not mere policy. The reasons are solidly set in the same tough mold which,b y law, keeps young ladies out of the Infantry foxhole. The writer and even too many within our military leadership speak of this war as 'lost.' Never in the history of war have two billigerent nations, of ancient animosity toward us, been taken off the enemy map with such astoundingly low casualties. Yet we are going to quit because of what can at best be described as low level insurgencies in both arenas. If we quit this war we are surrendering to mines, snipers and roadside bombs. We veterans of the Vietnam War are deeply concerned that quitting is now so deeply ingrained in the national brain it has become all right to do it. Military officers do not talk out of school but do quietly fall on their swords if required to stand up for what is right. That sir, is the stuff honor is made of and it is not debatable or negotiable. If our leaking to the press military leadership wishes respect from elected leaders; earn it. After all, our Privates and Sergeants have done just fine and do not consider themselves 'losers.' Who would have thought that an appointed leader would have to depart because our Generals thought he was too tough? |  Submit Your Comment |
|
Posted by Gen. Charles C. Irions | March 31, 2008 1:56:10 PM EDT