The President visits Dover

[Brett327]

Bingo. This is, in my opinion, a much more insidious problem than any issue our current President or the previous one could dream up. If we, as members of the military, are in disagreement about what our Commander in Chief is doing and his reasons for doing it, then there are much bigger problems to deal with than we as citizens simply not liking him (or the previous him either). It shows a lack of trust in our leaders and those who are informing their decisions. That bothers me a lot more than Obama having his picture taken in Dover. Unfortunately, there's not much to be done to fix it, at least nothing I can think of.

I'm not saying that we should blindly follow, mind you. Blind followership is the antithesis of progress, because it causes everyone to move in one direction or another without any understanding of WHY they're moving in that direction. Instead of slamming our leaders, whether or not we are justified in doing so, maybe we should try to look at it from a balanced (dare I say bipartisan? ) standpoint, since I think military members should be politically neutral anyways. I say that because the Constitution is not a Democratic or Republican creation; so we should not be only in support of those parts which are left- or right-leaning. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of supporting and defending the whole darn thing!

Also, whoever it was earlier who said that everything a President does is a political move is exactly right. It goes back to the dual role of the President as head of government and head of his political party. You have to do both at the same time, so every decision you make is therefore colored by the fact that you're making it with your political party in mind. I'm pretty sure the last President to not be political was a guy named George Washington, and he (among others from his time) said that political parties will be detrimental to our nation. I'm not sure I can look at the current party spread and disagree.

Don't worry, the same thing happened when Clinton took office and somehow we're all still here. People will get over it and move on to more important things. In the meantime, it provides the rest of us with an interesting (and entertaining) window into people's minds and how petty and delusional we can all be sometimes.

Brett

 

[scoolbubba]

I gotta wonder what will overshadow this mountain out of a molehill. I don't particularly care for any of his policies, but seriously, are we bitching that our CinC paid his respects to one of our fallen?

 

[Bevo16]

I gotta wonder what will overshadow this mountain out of a molehill. I don't particularly care for any of his policies, but seriously, are we bitching that our CinC paid his respects to one of our fallen?

It's the way he did it that bugs me, all the cameras, all of the media. If he wants to go to Dover, that's fine. There is a proper way to pay respect, and it does not involve getting on the news at the start of someone's funeral.

 

[Mumbles]

There was a lot of 'direction' from SECDEF to the planners for OIF; troop levels, timelines and most important Phase IV considerations. Haven't seen anything written that says Bush was behind the direction, it seems Rumsfeld was directing the show and Bush trusted his SECDEF. The outcome now is obvious...
GEN Shinseki opposed Rumsfeld on the number of troops required to do the job. The original OPLAN called for 450K. Multiple scenarios ran between 400K-500K for personnel required to defeat and then occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted to do it on the cheap and consistantly dictated an end-strength of 125K. Shinseki opposed SECDEF and was shown the door. GEN Shinseki showed honor, courage and commitment (I've heard these words somewhere before...)
As for the current situation, ask yourself this; how do you envision Afghanistan in 5 years? In 20 years? You need to answer those questions before you determine your strategy. You have to have a defined end-state; which is something we've been lacking in recent years. "Democracy" is not the right answer.... there are too many permutations of what Democracy is to have that be the strategy.
The President is trying to answer the question of how do we define success. I'm not talking about a Vietnam era declare victory and go home. How do we achieve victory in a location that is referred to as 'the graveyard of empires'. If there is no strategy, then there can be no plan. With no plan, then we are just sending our brothers and sisters into a war zone with no clearly articulated plan.
We can't do the Powell Doctrine of a clearly defined exit strategy because we won't know where to go or how to get there, so we'll never know when it's time to leave.
If the President wants to spend a few weeks to get some answers before you dumps a few more Billion dollars into a sh!thole country, then I say we give him the opportunity to get it right.
The bigger question should be, where is this strategy from our military leaders? If the President doesn't like thier plan, then get a new plan or new leadership. The monkey is on the back of the military to get a good strategy and provide the civillian leadership with a feasible, sustainable and realistic plan!!

For real???
The POTUS announced a "strategy" back in March.......look it up.
I also was under the impression that the Theatre Commander gave his recomendations 3+ months ago (if you want to talk about a plan....or maybe you are talking about John Kerry's?).... I wonder how many more retired flag officers are behind McChrystal vice against his opinion?? hmmmm?

 

[scoolbubba]

It's the way he did it that bugs me, all the cameras, all of the media. If he wants to go to Dover, that's fine. There is a proper way to pay respect, and it does not involve getting on the news at the start of someone's funeral.

He loves the press, and they love him, but I seriously doubt he's sitting up at night, thinking of newer and more devious ways to get his face on the cover of a magazine. This was a classy move; since he's the President, the press was there to cover it. End of story.

 

[mmx1]

Can you name a single request for forces made by a commander during President Bush's term in office that was met with the response "be patient"...followed by more than a month of indecision?

The invasion of Iraq. The Army requested forces and Rumsfeld line by line audited and cut who would deploy. He didn't wait a month to do it either.

 

[mmx1]

It's the way he did it that bugs me, all the cameras, all of the media. If he wants to go to Dover, that's fine. There is a proper way to pay respect, and it does not involve getting on the news at the start of someone's funeral.

Weren't some of the same folks here decrying why there wasn't media coverage of the tridents laid on MA2 Monsoor's coffin? Oh, but that's "good" coverage of a funeral and the President paying respects is "bad".

 

[Flash]

Can you name a single request for forces made by a commander during President Bush's term in office that was met with the response "be patient"...followed by more than a month of indecision?

You are obviously not familiar with the RFF process, it happens all the time. The difference is that this time it is in the public view, every other time it happens behind the scenes. Many times those requests are turned down or drastically reduced, it happened in the last administration and happens in this one for a variety of reasons. But the time taken on this decision is neither unusual or uncommon, the strategic weight of it is.

I don't know if President Bush went to Dover, but I do know that he went to Walter Reid and Bethesda regularly and you didn't hear or see it on the news.

Maybe because you didn't bother to crack open a paper or even a tabloid, saw it on the news a few times too. It was common knowledge that he visited the hospitals many times, at least in this area and especially among the military community.

P.S. It is Walter Reed.

 

[S.O.B.]

He loves the press, and they love him, but I seriously doubt he's sitting up at night, thinking of newer and more devious ways to get his face on the cover of a magazine. This was a classy move; since he's the President, the press was there to cover it. End of story.

A classy move would have been no, cameras middle of the night and tell the press about it in the AM briefing.

 

[ryan1234]

A classy move would have been no, cameras middle of the night and tell the press about it in the AM briefing.

Very True

The first goal of any politician is to get re-elected.... so whatever motives that he did have will be questioned, rightly or wrongly. I truly hope that his intentions were sincere and that perhaps the visit to Dover will vindicate further decisive action. Time will tell.

 

[Cleonard19]

A classy move would have been no, cameras middle of the night and tell the press about it in the AM briefing.

Concur.

He loves the press, and they love him, but I seriously doubt he's sitting up at night, thinking of newer and more devious ways to get his face on the cover of a magazine. This was a classy move; since he's the President, the press was there to cover it. End of story.

No, he has a Press Secretary for that, and a political manager, etc.

Bingo. This is, in my opinion, a much more insidious problem than any issue our current President or the previous one could dream up. If we, as members of the military, are in disagreement about what our Commander in Chief is doing and his reasons for doing it, then there are much bigger problems to deal with than we as citizens simply not liking him (or the previous him either). It shows a lack of trust in our leaders and those who are informing their decisions. That bothers me a lot more than Obama having his picture taken in Dover. Unfortunately, there's not much to be done to fix it, at least nothing I can think of.

I'm not saying that we should blindly follow, mind you. Blind followership is the antithesis of progress, because it causes everyone to move in one direction or another without any understanding of WHY they're moving in that direction. Instead of slamming our leaders, whether or not we are justified in doing so, maybe we should try to look at it from a balanced (dare I say bipartisan? ) standpoint, since I think military members should be politically neutral anyways. I say that because the Constitution is not a Democratic or Republican creation; so we should not be only in support of those parts which are left- or right-leaning. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of supporting and defending the whole darn thing!

Also, whoever it was earlier who said that everything a President does is a political move is exactly right. It goes back to the dual role of the President as head of government and head of his political party. You have to do both at the same time, so every decision you make is therefore colored by the fact that you're making it with your political party in mind. I'm pretty sure the last President to not be political was a guy named George Washington, and he (among others from his time) said that political parties will be detrimental to our nation. I'm not sure I can look at the current party spread and disagree.

I partially agree here. When we're acting as service members, at work, in uniform, on duty, etc. We SHOULD be politically neutral. HOWEVER, all other times considered, WE ARE, FIRST AND FOREMOST, AMERICANS. And as Americans, we have certain responsibilities to our government and our President. At the same time, HE has certain responsibilities to US. Namely, to SERVE US in the way that WE elected him to serve. We (as a nation) elected him because we supposedly had faith in his reasoning and judgement. Now, if at some point in his Presidency, the American Public, Service members included, lose faith in his reasoning and judgement, we not only have a right, but a RESPONSIBILITY to ourselves and the Constitution to make a point of it, and if need be, replace the CiC with a more qualified American.

The issue in my eyes is NOT on whether or not American Service Members should voice their political opinions. The issue is when they throw the uniform in the ring with their political opinions that I believe that they crossed the line.

Not saying I disagree with anything else, I just felt the need to toss my .02 in on that sentence.

 

[squorch2]

That SHOULD is a shall - and as an AD service member your political activities are tightly controlled, regardless of how you think it should be. If and when you "lose faith in [the president's] reasoning and judgement" doesn't matter - if it's not the voting booth, you probably shouldn't be there.

 

[Beans]

My (and I think Squorch's and Cleonard's) feeling on the matter is that when your military status is made known to your audience, as it is here, it is damaging to the chain of command when you bash or show contempt for anyone in it. On Airwarriors, we're practically in uniform, so I think we ought to keep some of these opinions to ourselves.

And another reason why I don't like it is that now there's this banner ad up for Ann Coulter's column, and she's staring at me all scary-like. Time to contribute!

 

[exhelodrvr]

That SHOULD is a shall - and as an AD service member your political activities are tightly controlled, regardless of how you think it should be. If and when you "lose faith in [the president's] reasoning and judgement" doesn't matter - if it's not the voting booth, you probably shouldn't be there.

Wrong - there is no "shall" about being politically neutral. The "shall" refers to how you manifest your political feelings. Big difference.

 

[SkywardET]

My (and I think Squorch's and Cleonard's) feeling on the matter is that when your military status is made known to your audience, as it is here, it is damaging to the chain of command when you bash or show contempt for anyone in it. On Airwarriors, we're practically in uniform, so I think we ought to keep some of these opinions to ourselves.

And another reason why I don't like it is that now there's this banner ad up for Ann Coulter's column, and she's staring at me all scary-like. Time to contribute!

I think this is exactly right. Only your friends and family should be aware of both your status as an active duty service member and your political views simultaneously. That's the gold standard in my opinion, anyways.