Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MedMech
Remember "Clear and Present Danger" Jack, your boss is your boss's boss.....the people of the United States of America. Who's Rumsfelds boss>
|
I always feel a little uncomfortable talking about national policy and the way the government works by referencing fictional movies or fictional books. I understand what you are saying and that using the reference is an illustrative way of conveying your point. The flip side of what you are doing is exemplified in the many conversations we've had on various threads with people saying "you've got to see movie X" or "I saw them violate his rights on NYPD blue, so the patriot act is wrong" - which is laughable but it's what my father the PhD history prof faced me with a year or so ago.
Rumsfeld's boss is W. W's boss is the electorate. Much like we elected him for a 4 year term I think that W appointed Rumsfeld and doesn't micromanage. Rumsfeld appears to be in charge at the DoD. Now, from a programmatic standpoint he is quickly re-inventing the military. It's a different type of world than what the military has been designed for since WWII and before. We do need more of the special op type folk - maybe we don't have the time to train them the way we have in the past becuase globally the anticipated need is far greater than our current resources. This is a guess, it's not my area of expertise. My point is that in any major alignment shift there are going to be major problems. The business of the DoD is defense which results in someone dying. As the paradigm (how I hate that word) shifts things do not operate smoothly, but waiting until things do means that there will never be a shift. We have a global terrorist threat, perhaps many rougue nations. In addition, there is China looming on the horizon. Our military has to be prepared for both. Incidentally, so does our State Dept. and the various branches of the intelligence services. I'm still kinda puzzled that we don't have thousands of people learning arabic as collateral duties. I'd volunteer in a heartbeat.
In any case, we get back to Bot's earlier point. What do you do if your legally elected boss gives you a legal order that you disagree with? If you're military you state your thoughts, if allowed, and then do what you are told or resign (in reference to officers). If you are civilian you state your thoughts, no need to ask permission, you do what you are told or resign. Ideally your leadership will take your thoughts into mind - it still may not change the decision. In either case you've sworn to uphold the constitution that provides the framework that put your disagreeable leader in charge.