"....“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military operations,”...retired Marine General John J. (Jack) Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “.... ---))) Boy, there's a shock. And, unbelievably, the sycophants will line up to tell us how being against the Iraq war is being against the military. Wake up, sycophants, civilians in the Bush administration have been using the military to pursue their own domestic political agenda

Comment removed.

Interesting. I direct a comment at sycophants, and batboy responds. What an odd coincidence.

Tps, I would say that in spite of the merit of Sheehan's and Fallon's views, they had to go for two reasons. First and foremost, their criticisms indicate that they are not committed to the mission. For better or worse, the President must have commanders who are committed to the mission. Whether the civilian commander in chief heeds those criticisms is a different story. The second reason, which would probably pass over the sycophants' heads, is that he said the magic words: "Undue civilian influence". There is no such thing as undue civilian influence, because ultimately the military is subordinate to the civilian commander in chief.

Don't forget our other enemies too - Hugo in Venezuela. Kim Jung in North Korea. And Africa's Dr Evil, Bobby Mugabe. He is on his way to SHARM EL-SHEIK to look for some love and support. These dudes might be better off heading to the South Side of Chicago. They can shoot some hoops with Obama and then have chit-chats with the AnswerMan.

Civilian influence becomes undue when civilian leaders disregard the views of military experts, so that the civilian leaders can impose policies crafted to pursue political agendas. And clearly, he wasn't only talking about the commander in chief - no doubt he was talking about Rumsfeld, primarily. Could there be any more evidence that Rumsfeld's influence was undue? As to whether a president must have commanders who are "committed to the mission," that depends on your definition of the mission. Do you doubt that the commanders were dedicated to the mission of achieving military aims at minimal costs? I don't. Do you doubt that the commanders were dedicated to the mission of using the military to obtain positive results? I don't. Do you doubt that even if they disagreed with a specific policy, they wouldn't have executed their duties responsibly to ensure the success of that policy? I don't. The fact that this president equates differences of opinion re: specific policies as being a lack of "commitment" to the "mission," is exactly the problem we had in Iraq. These men were dedicated to the mission of keeping Americans safe and achieving positive results in the ME. The fact that they might have disagreed with specific policies to achieve those goals, for example launching an attack on Iran, in no way should put into question their ability to fulfill their responsibilities or their dedication to their mission of protecting and serving.

Comment removed.

will must be in the back, all those in the foreground look to be fairly unwrinkled.

Will has on his Phillies turban.

The merits of the civilian influence are immaterial. The civilian is the boss, period. Civilians can make mistakes just as easily as theater commanders, but the civilian is the boss, and we should be thankful for that. What do you think are the implications of the generals vetoing the civilian CinC?

I see Will is getting ready to wrap himself in Old Glory this Friday.

You missed the point again, Steve. I'm not suggesting that the military should be able to veto the C in C. I'm suggesting that when civilian leaders disregard military advice on military matters, and pursue a political agenda through the use of the military, it amounts to "undue influence." It is possible for civilians to step outside reasonable limits upon their obligations and responsibilities. When they begin to make military decisions, about military tactics and strategy, when they lack the requisite knowledge (all abundantly represented in the Bush policy in Iraq), their influence becomes "undue." All one needs to do is look at the debacle that is Iraq, to see the results of that situation. I can paint extreme situations in the reverse that would parallel your hyperbolic analogy of the military overruling the C in C: for example a C in C ordering an invasion of another country, against military advice, and in a manner that runs counter to strategy recommended by military advisors, and without regard to warnings of negative ramifications from state department experts, because he's seeking to exact revenge for a personal grievance against his father. Wait, maybe that's not so far-fetched after all. Anyway, the point is that there's no reason to assume that the military men in question were, in any way, "not committed" to the mission. The only way you can view them that way is if you assume the Republican sycophant stance that if you disagree with me, then you're a traitor.

"I'm suggesting that when civilian leaders disregard military advice on military matters, and pursue a political agenda through the use of the military, it amounts to 'undue influence.'" Let's suppose that the military leaders had told the CinC that, in military terms, the quickest, easiest and most effective way to handle the ME wars would be to nuke Iraq and Afghanistan. You seem to imply that when the CinC factors in the political ramifications of such a move and decides to wage a conventional war instead, that it amounts to "undue influence" by civilian leaders.

Comment removed.

There are two separate issues here, commitment and the magic words. It is possible for commanders to pursue a mission they disagree with, but the act of speaking publicly is, I think, going too far. Flag officers have as much a political job as a strictly military one because it is ultimately impossible to separate the political aspects of the mission from the military ones. A theater CinC that isn't as enthusiastic in the mission as somebody else might be invites the inevitable meddling of the SecDef, who will have to oversee every move. As far as the magic words, civilian officials are more accountable than military officials because the civilians have to run for reelection. If the voters reelect the incompetents, well, that's democracy. How hyperbolic is this scenario? Hilary Clinton could have eked out the nomination for President, and perhaps she wins. In her zeal to establish her CinC "cred" (which was supposed to be one of her strengths), I'm sure you'll remember how she put out her reputation for ridicule with "snipergate". So how does she reestablish that cred? Certainly not by having a purge at the the top? Unhappy generals will make her political life very hard. Remember how high her negatives run to begin with, but imagine if some dissatisfied generals accused her of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. She couldn't allow that to happen, so what does she do? Give those generals what they want, whatever it is. In other words, she would cede her role as civilian overseer of the military to avoid political reversal. Remember how she stuck with her gas tax holiday no matter how ridiculous the idea was? She would do ANYTHING to avoid bad press. That is hardly hyperbole. That is probably what would have happened in a Clinton administration.