There is no "Commander in Chief." The correct phrase, from our Constitution, is that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces." The omission of the latter part of the phrase transforms the head of the military into the tyrant of the nation. Anyone who supports such a transformation has injured the Republic and aided the oppression of the American people.Right on. A point that connects to these questions of readiness to lead. The argument that any civilian is not ready to lead the Armed Forces strikes me as a last ditch argument, the one made when there is little else to argue. As President, a civilian is not making military decisions on the fly in the field and under fire. A President makes those decisions with consultation of the Joint Chiefs (who one hopes have that experience), in light of policy, and with the consent of Congress (in some cases).
Never we mind that McBush was in the military, but never led men in battle, never created or executed strategy in war. In his war experience, he was given orders, not giving them.
Indeed, Rumsfeld and Cheney both served under a president fighting a war with failing strategy. That's experience. And yet, returned to national political service to design and prosecute another failed war. Experience is no guarantee of wisdom or knowledge.
Or take now running-mate Biden's previous statement that the Presidency is not a job that "lends itself to on-the-job training." WTF?? What other kind of training in that position could there possibly be? Really. It's a quantum leap beyond any position in state and federal government and the military. The complications and nuances of the Presidency transcend them all. No one is really already ready.
Hence --- advisors, the Cabinet, the people of the Republic who can speak.
Do let's read through, behind, between, and beyond the lines. Do let's try to keep one toe on reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment