Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (52361)	10/16/2002 11:38:00 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It raises a host of very serious questions, Yes, it does. And it is being handled the right way, IMO. Well, it won't surprise you to find I think it's more complex. I think it's fairly easy to agree to two propositions in the abstract--transforming the military and civilian control of the military. But what does that mean in this context? 1. The military needs to be transformed to fight different kinds of wars. That's not easy because careers are built into the present structure. Doing so requires a view of what direction to take it, the ego to survive bruising battles, the skills to navigate bureaucracies well, the political backing of folk above (Bush, in this case), and the diplomacy to pull it off such that you don't break the thing in the process. Rumsfeld appears to have all of the above save the last. We are obviously going to find out whether he breaks the sucker or pulls this off. 2. Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of a democratic form of government. In this regard, I'm not persuaded yet by the Cohen book. That is, that control means deep down running of military campaigns. Cohen discussed but failed to address, in my view, the problems encountered when the person executing that control is not at Lincoln's level, etc. Rumsfeld, right now, looks good on this score save, again, for the last point above. But then he might just be retracing some of that history since it's clear there were far more explosive moments in, say, Lincoln's history with the generals than Rumsfeld may face. (And, need we ask, where's Bush in this? What happens when the generals go over Rumsfeld to Bush? That will be interesting to watch.)