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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (3926)	4/15/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 17770

<<Yes I want a military subservient to our civilian government and similarly I want a civilian government that doesn't use our military for political empowerment. My guess is when a political leader goes against the advice of his own military advisors, the latter is probably the case>> I myself am of the mind as well that a President should listen to his military advisors, since they are the ones that know the job and know how to get it done. It is unfortunate that our services have been put into situations all too often this century where politics have handicapped their ability to wage effective war, ie. to win and win decisively. In the case of Kosovo, as in Vietnam, IMHO this is a case of pure muddy thinking. But the fact remains that the decisions lie in the end with the President and sometimes political considerations must overide purely military ones, and the military must sometimes do with what politics have dealt them. Korea, to take one controversial example, was a case where political considerations justifiably may have applied. Truman did not want to start WWIII over S. Korea. MacArthur, for all his brilliance, didnt seem to mind the idea of nuking China. Civil authority prevailed. Sometimes politics is not merely power grubbing.