I'm not impressed that the military leaders are impressed with Pres. Obama

[bigtree]

Most of them are Bush appointees who don't share most of the Democratic values expressed in the election or in Congress about the exercise of our military forces.

I though we were hiring him to shake things up at the Pentagon. It doesn't make me a bit comfortable knowing that Bush's military leaders who have helped him wage his imperialism and expansionism abroad in contradiction of what our party wanted or expected are 'comfortable.'


article

[DS1]

1. I'm not impressed by your lack of impression of military leaders impression of Obama

so there

[bigtree]

2. nice

have I EVER come onto one of your threads with such nonsense?

[DS1]

5. We all have to start somewhere

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Can't Take The Heat? Stay Out Of The Kitchen

Thanks, Harry.
The Professor

[bigtree]

65. You're just reflecting typical DU rudeness and arrogance

I know well that I've never come onto your thread and treated you the same.

You think too much of yourself if you're assuming I can't take your 'heat.' I can 'take' it, but I don't have to like it.

[RBInMaine]

3. I'm not impressed with your WHINING post before the man has even taken office. STFU and quit your

bitching. We just worked like hell to elect a Dem after 8 years of hell. Give the man an F-ING chance !

[bigtree]

8. so we can't hold opinions here, in your view, without being accused of 'whining'

Okay, two incredibly rude responses to my opposition to Bush's military 'leaders.' This doesn't resemble anything I'd expect from Democrats who have been so opposed to Bush's militarism for eight years. (par for the course for this place.)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duende azul]

69. Please stop WHINING if you can´t stand opinions that differ from yours

See, you made me use Caps-Lock!

Never thought I would sink so low. Shit.

[Mind_your_head]

115. If it weern't for eight years of hell......Mr. Obama would never have been elected

....and "they" threw in sarah palin as an 'extra-special' bonus for the stooopid to 'get a clue', which the stupid still resisted....

Barack Obama...he plays it 'cool'

Very refreshing!

[madokie]

4. Why the hard-on for Obama all of a sudden Bigtree???

Leave him alone until he gets settled in his new job. Personally I'm going to believe in him believing in me like he said it was going to be.

Kinda of reminds me of my working years. Almost always I would be put in a leadership role and in that role its pretty obvious you all have to get behind the man/woman with the plan. He has the plan so get behind him until, you know he starts really fucking up.

Thats my advice

peace and low stress as mdmc would say

we can still be friends can't we??? ;-)

[bigtree]

12. what I don't understand is why we have to love these Bush military men

I have NEVER suppoted ANY of their bull and I'm not ready to start now. Why can't you see the consistency in that?

I had a nice thread yesterday where I praised Obama. That shouldn't be our primary exercise if we actually care about these issues that he expects Bush appointees to carry out. I can trust him and still not care at all for the folks he chooses to carry out his policies. At the Pentagon, I don't believe we should have to tolerate all of these Bush hangovers. Why can't that be accepted at face value that someone would still oppose these folks?

[madokie]

16. The fault lies with the premise that everyone is for sale, can be bought if you will

I won't accept that about our military leaders anymore than I would believe that about you.

[bigtree]

20. I don't think anyone has to be 'bought.'

I just believe that they should share our Democratic principles. I'm tired of hearing how conservatives, moderates, and centrists are more 'reasonable' than their counterparts.

[madokie]

25. Hang on a minute

How do you know these peoples personal politics. Best I remember the military is non political. I just think you're making a mistake with this line of questioning at this point in time. Give the man some time then question what he does not who he pals around with. I mean come on man give him a chance. I know I am. In fact for some reason it does to me the same thing that attacking my family would.

peace and low stress

Barack Obama just may be the kind that holds his friends close and his enemys closer. ;-) ever think of that?

[bigtree]

29. Petraeus was 'non-political?' Rumsfeld?

Is Gates really the same as the folks who have been advising Obama in the campaign and transition. Not in my view. I haven't heard ANY of these 'leaders' speak out in support of Democratic principles expressed by our party for YEARS in opposition to what they were carrying out for Bush.

The 'leaders' in the military are appointed. They should reflect the values that we voted for.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Rumsfeld Wasn't Military

Again you are showing that you haven't thought this through.

Rumsfeld was the CIVILIAN leadership of the DoD.

That is so far from being military as to make the comparison laughable.
The Professor

[bigtree]

59. What point does that make here? He's a civilian leader of the military.

A military leader. That makes all of your blather about career military off point. Having the Bush Pentagon, both military and non-military leaders comfortable with Obama isn't a good thing. The only 'comparison' was in response to all of these assertions that these people are somehow apolitical in their actions. History has shown otherwise.

[midnight]

24. We need to move in another direction for the security of this

country. I agree with you that this is a time to address these concerns.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Because They're Not "Bush Military Men"

Your premise is fatally flawed, but you're too busy making a point to realize that there is no point when it's based upon nothing.
The Professor

[bigtree]

61. That's an irrelevant point.

The leadership of the Pentagon (both civilian and military) makes decisions about the exercise of the forces. That's what we're discussing here, not your deflection from that point.

[Bonobo]

6. Correct! I want our military people to be "UN-impressed" by Obama!

errrrr, ummm.... yeah. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Recursion]

31. Again, there seems to be a widespread impression on DU...

...that the military today likes * and dislikes Democrats. The officer corps is somewhat more Republican than the nation as a whole (only somewhat), and the enlisted ranks are somewhat more socially conservative than the median of the nation, but anybody who thinks the military is some stalwart Republican phalanx is simply buying the Republican spin.

[lamp_shade]

7. I AM impressed that the military leaders are impressed with Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Gates has appointed smart people. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I would rather that they be frightened of him. K&R

Playing footsie with the Pentagon and having their confidence is not a good sign.

[bigtree]

15. frightened is a perfect word

If they don't want to follow his lead then he should appoint someone else to replace them.

[Duende azul]

71. Yeah, and all this fuss sheds a light on

the democrats fear of being perceived weak on defense.

Reminds me of Turkey, where the elected government (while there is one and of what stripe ever) always has to have one eye on the military if they still have the approval.

It shouldn't be that way.
And we are not talking about the rank and file, we are talking about highly political posts.

During the *regime they resigned if they dissented and perhaps later complained. But never were given publicity in "vetting" the president.

[gogoplata]

109. Agreed.

[dkf]

10. Our military leaders were holding Bush back on Iran.

I think they are simply glad they can talk to a rational CIC.,

[jdalton77]

11. I'm not sure that's fair

Military leaders serve the President, whether Bush or otherwise. It is not a good thing when military leader openly question the President because that would erode the civilian leadership of the military. I'm not surprised they did not criticize him but you never heard them say they were "impressed" by shrub. I think it's rather significant.

[bigtree]

17. Well, Bush eventually cleared the deck and put in his own players

I've opposed this bunch and their like for years now. I'm still waiting for them to retire or move on.

[ixion]

14. was just thinking this earlier today

if neocon war hawks are impressed, then I am suspicious.

[Trajan]

18. Many Bush appointees disagreed with Bush ...

I think you are projecting what YOU think is the mindset of 'The Generals' onto them, without actually knowing what exactly they DO think ....

You have bought into the notion that the military is completely behind the hegemonistic policy as described by the Neocons .... They are not, and many of 'The Generals' have been pushing back, declaring more rational approaches that counter the Neocon line ...

I dislike many things about the Military, as do many of those who are in the leadership ranks ... It appears you are not familiar with the extensive level of dissent within those ranks ...

We need a RATIONAL foreign policy, and many of 'The Generals' think President Obama will provide exactly that ...

[JohnnyLib2]

19. Sorry, I've missed whatever comments or article prompted the OP.

Bigtree, can you point me toward it/them?

[bigtree]

23. sorry, here's one of the reports that came out today

Obama winning over military skeptics

Military leader 'very positive' after meeting with Obama Presidencies

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called the president-elect a pragmatist who is willing to listen.

By KAREN DEYOUNG, Washington Post

November 29, 2008


Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with only a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

As Obama prepares to announce his national security team early this week, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.

But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/35263339.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUbP:P:Q_V_MPQLa7PYDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

[madokie]

28. I take it you've never been in the military have you:?

Generals and Admirals don't like war nor do they advocate going to war. So whats the beef here. If I was a General in the army I would be real happy to have a President like Obama and especially right now coming off a bushco pResidency

[bigtree]

30. That's a cop out. I've heard plenty of military men advocate outside of the Bush doctrine

. . . which these 'leaders' have been promoting right along with our militarist-in-chief.

Our expectations should be much different for the Pentagon leadership than it should be from the rank-and-file. The leaders actually formulate policy which is usually accepted and employed by the president. The rank-and-file are just pledged to carry it out. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that those leaders share our values. And if those leaders have been (voluntarily) supporting the Bush doctrine, they shouldn't be allowed to continue.

We saw general after general walk on Bush. These folks stayed.

[madokie]

37. For the most part the military is non political

The only one that should be politicized should be Mr Gates in this case. He has put a stop to the bigger war that bushco were advocating for. If you remember he wasn't bushco, per se, pick to begin with.

I'm not sure I get how what I typed was a cop out though.

I love ya man but I think you are wrong on this.

[bigtree]

41. Petraeus is still in place

Is he 'non-political?'

[Captain Hilts]

38. You have it backwards. The Prez tells them what to do and they give the alternative ways to do it..

So, the ones that stayed, stayed to protect the best interest of their people.

[bigtree]

40. so you actually believe there isn't going to be any influence from the Pentagon at all

. . . over what Obama actually decides? That's not the history of relationship between the Pentagon and the White House. Certainly not the recent history.

[Captain Hilts]

42. George W. Bush gave the military missions. They did NOT want to invade Iraq. nt

[bigtree]

45. Those who opposed that type of militarism left in droves

The ones who stayed and CHOSE to serve in Bush's leadership at the Pentagon are true believers.

Gates, for instance, shares Bush's view that Iraq and Afghanistan are battlefields for fighting 'ideologies.'

[JohnnyLib2]

44. thanks, back soon.

:hi:

[Fleshdancer]

21. Military leaders will always be impressed with a commander in chief that cares about the troops

After 8 years of Bush using the military as a way to make his friends more rich through unnecessary war and using soldiers as props for marketing his political campaigns, I can understand why someone like Obama would be impressive to military leaders.

[midnight]

22. My first reaction is I know what ya mean. But then think about it?

They have watched the white house order a war against a country that had a man running it that we didn't like and so to remove him, we created over five million orphans, exhausted our military, didn't find the weapons of mass destruction, didn't capture Bin laden. The military would probably be happy with anyone at this point.

[Captain Hilts]

26. The Army and Marines went into Iraq kicking and screaming. They HATED Rumsfeld. nt

[bigtree]

32. Many of those in the leadership bolted.

Those are the folks I would support.

[Recursion]

77. Many others stayed to keep their men and women alive

But they were field-grade and company-grade officers, so you haven't heard of them. But some of them are starting to get their stars now.

[bigtree]

79. The leadership positions we're discussing here are basically political appointments

At those levels of service you describe, there shouldn't be any regard to their politics. But when they assume positions where they are formulating policy rather than just implementing it, their actions become inevitably political.

[alarimer]

27. They can go fuck themselves.

The war-mongers need to go.

[Recursion]

33. You mean the "warmongers" that kept Bush out of Iran?

Yeah, those are some real warmongers.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Most folks here don't do 'nuance' when it comes to the military/Pentagon. nt

[bigtree]

39. that's overrated. I mean these warmongers who kept us in Iraq

. . . like Gates.

from March:

Pentagon Urges Delay in U.S. Troop Reductions in Iraq

March 22, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senior military commanders have presented the Bush administration with proposals to put off any plans for further reductions of troops in Iraq at least until the end of summer. At the same time, the proposals would limit new deployments to 12 months, instead of 15 months now, military and administration officials said Friday.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met for a second day in closed sessions with the Pentagon’s top officers to outline recommendations to be presented to President Bush on Wednesday.

General Petraeus and other officials have made it clear that they want more time to assess what happens after the withdrawals are completed, leaving 15 combat brigades in Iraq. In his public remarks on Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war, Mr. Bush strongly suggested that he would not hasten the reductions.

The debate over troop levels in Iraq has caused divisions among senior commanders. Adm. William J. Fallon, the leader of Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, argued publicly for continued withdrawals in Iraq after only a brief pause. That put him at odds with General Petraeus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/world/middleeast/22policy.html?pagewanted=print

[kentuck]

43. Obama is not going to make the decision out front.

He will send his two strongest security experts, Hillary Clinton and General James Jones, before the Congress and the Senate to explain what is in the best interest of our nation. There will not be a lot of confrontation between Barack and the military. He will leave the heavy lifting to his two top lieutenants in this new government.

[bigtree]

46. I have high hopes for Jones

. . . despite his musical taste :P

[Pirate Smile]

47. I'm impressed that they are impressed by Obama and were NOT impressed by Bush.

That raises my impression of them.

" But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting." '

[JohnnyLib2]

48. I think this is ass-kissing season all over D.C. and the Pentagon.

And there are some masters of that talent. It will take some months for the admin/Pentagon battles to shake out and for critical personnel decisions to be made. For now, I'm going to assumed Obama and staff are addressing some of this, quickly.

Fingers crossed......

[ProfessorGAC]

49. They're Not Bush "Appointees"

They are guys that have risen through the ranks of the military.

Now, i'm no great fan of the military management folks, but they don't get "appointed". They earn their way there, and whether there's a Repub or Dem president, they still get promoted.

So, you're premise is fatally flawed. These guys don't care which party the commander in chief is in. They just want to impress the boss.

You're grossly overcomplicated it.
The Professor

[bigtree]

52. Gates wasn't appointed? Mullen? Petraeus?

That's some kind of bending over backwards to disassociate these folks from the Bush doctrine which they have been carrying out. There are profound disagreements, within the military, over their role and direction. It makes no sense to pretend that they are some apolitical monolith.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

55. I understand that these leadership positions are appointments

. . .and that they have a choice who to serve under, as the president has a choice whether to allow them to serve. I also understand that most of these folks who are elevated to the leadership bring their political biases into the position.

I also understand that Pres. Obama will be coming into the commander-in-chief position with a dearth of experience which will require him to rely on the opinion of these folks who have been cleaving their policy to suit the Bush doctrine. To pretend like they are autobots who can be programmed to operate outside of their biases is unreasonable and I wonder why even go through that when there are so many military men and women who have decidedly different views on the exercise of our military forces than these folks who have willingly adopted Bush's autocratic bullshit.

I don't think you are being honest about the role of these military leaders who have willingly accepted positions supporting and promoting Bush's militarism.

[Mari333]

60. I am very very concerned also

I am a bit taken aback by the almost hawkish stance by DU lately. Back when Bush was invading Iraq, this place was full of antiwar advocates. Now, all of a sudden, Barack can do no wrong, Barack is right about military expansion in Afghanistan, Barack should not be criticized.
Its absolutely bizarre.
and turning into a warmongers rally.

[scarletwoman]

95. The military does NOT "make policy", they carry out the orders of those who DO make policy. (nt)

[bigtree]

98. They don't make the ultimate decisions, no, but they DO formulate policy

. . . and submit it for approval or disapproval. In the case of the military they will be tasked with formulating the specifics of the withdrawal plan which Pres. Obama will mandate from office. They will be tasked with formulating the plan for force structure and equipment and weapons procurement, and more.

They are also tasked with implementing policy. That responsibility can be critical to success or effect of policy directed from the top.

Are we to just wait and see how these folks operate before being critical without considering their past actions?

[scarletwoman]

102. The policy is withdrawal. What the military recommends for implementing that policy is strategy and

tactics.

If the military is "impressed" with Obama, that means they will be amenable to seeing that Obama's policies will be carried out efficiently. Therefore, they will devise good strategies for implementing those policies.

If Obama is going to control the military, he will HAVE to have their respect.

[bigtree]

104. I think they're just hoping to preserve their advantaged culture at the Pentagon

. . . and to preserve whatever structure enabled their present focus and intent. I don't believe they're actually operating out of any respect for what Mr. Obama proposed during the campaign. At least that was their posture throughout as they defended Bush policy against the charges from the campaign trail.

Their 'strategy' had our troops ransacking Fallujah and Ramadi. What 'strategy' will they recommend for fleshing out the anti-terrorism/anti-al-Qaeda part of Mr. Obama's Iraq plan for the residual troop force he plans to leave in place?

[cali]

56. coming from one of the biggest hillary supporters on DU

I'm amused by your alarm about Obama. I'm sorry, but I see your posts about Obama as being very p/a.

[bigtree]

63. started with Richardson and his out of Iraq NOW position

went with Edwards next, then Hillary . . . all with my anti-occupation stance in mind. Now you want to ridicule me for being a political realist in the primary campaign and settling with our Democratic nominee.

That's just typical bull from you cali.

[HughMoran]

57. Another meaningless post

How much more bizarre and meaningless can you be?

[bigtree]

64. I can't bring myself to care

. . . what you think of my opinion is meaningless.

[Pharaoh]

58. The Point is

They hate Bush, but since he is POTUS they can say nothing. I'm sure the military is real real happy this guy is gone. He's almost single handedly crushed any sense of military superiority we might have had..........

[RetroLounge]

62. Yawn

:eyes:

RL

[FrenchieCat]

66. I am not impressed by the superficiality found in your post.

We voted Obama to get us out of Iraq, to re-establish credibility for the U.S. Foreign policy, and to increase focus on diplomacy and less on military might.

Electing Obama did shake things up at the Pentagon, as it did everywhere.....but Obama is not yet Commander in Chief.

You see, in the United States, the Pentagon take orders from the top, not vise versa. The only reason the military leaders helped Bush wage his imperialism and expansionism is because Bush was the Commander-in-Chief. But then you knew that, which leaves me wondering why you would pen such an unsophisticated and uninformed rant. :shrug:

[bigtree]

67. It's not 'uninformed' to oppose the same people at the Pentagon I've been opposing for years

It's that effort which has made me well aware of the players and their beliefs and actions supporting Bush's militarism.

The ridicule for having that consistent view is incredible. Anyone who actually knows me and the battle I've been waging against this bunch would wonder about my integrity if I all of the sudden embraced these same folks who willingly accepted, promoted, and carried out the Bush Doctrine.

[FrenchieCat]

68. What I'm surprised about bigtree, is that you would simplify

changing the mindset of war as being a 3 week job......and a change that would happen prior to Obama becoming Commander in Chief.

I'm not going to make the mistake that the media assigns to progressives consistently; I don't dislike those in the military just because I don't like what the military does.

Again, the military takes orders. That's the whole point. Obama has yet to give an order, because he has not yet been sworn in.

What the Pentagon thinks of a potential Obama Presidency at this time is neither here nor there.

I'm just amazed at your lack of patience....because you are not the only one who has been waiting for 8 years to return to sanity.

[bigtree]

70. I don't think that complacency is a productive stance

. . . for those of us who have spent so much time and effort fighting this administration and (in this case) their Pentagon.

I disagree with the notion that there is no potential for any negative effect from Bush holdovers in the leadership, both civilian and military just because Pres. Obama will be giving the orders. We've seen the effects of rivalries between the military establishment and the WH in the past, and I'm not complaining about differences they may have had with Bush.

There's a very real prospect that, for at least a while, Pres. Obama will be reliant on these holdovers' opinion and guidance because of his relative inexperience in military affairs. I'm not satisfied that there will be the kind of institutional change at the Pentagon from the Bush years that's required to reign it in.

Without outlining every issue there, I think it's clear that they are out of control with their $700 billion budget and the management structure put in place by Cheney and Bush to support that ridiculous dominance in our national priorities. We will see these differences played out when Congress gets into the act of aserting their own priorities, as well as the certain internal resistance when Pres. Obama eventually asserts himself.

To assume that the military leadership will simply rollover the other way without pressure isn't realistic. Most of those in the leadership who opposed Bush's militarism retired. What is left are true believers or opportunists with no discernible values which match those of our own party. We should expect that our values are sufficient to be considered prudent enough to be adopted and shared by the leadership at the Pentagon. That is how I expect Pres. Obama to staff the leadership positions there.

[Mari333]

72. well said. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

74. We are not talking about Complacency, we are talking about Reasonability....

and you underestimate Obama's intelligence, as you always have, when you state....."There's a very real prospect that, for at least a while, Pres. Obama will be reliant on these holdovers' opinion and guidance because of his relative inexperience in military affairs."

Obama was not reliant on the opinions of the military or the neocons when he opposed the Iraq war, when he said that he would meet with leaders from country we supposedly didn't like, or when he stated that he was for time-lines or questioned the success of the surge. I'm not quite sure why he would become so reliant all of the sudden.

You see, I believe your flaw is that you assign to Obama actions and opinions that he has never held...and this says more about you than it does about Pres Elect Obama.

[bigtree]

75. you are underestimating the Pentagon's ability to drag their feet

And you are discounting the intricate constructions there which will work to undermine policy from the president, not just on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, you are assuming that I agree with every stance Mr. Obama has taken with regard to the exercise and management of our military. He is not infallible in the area of Defense, in my view.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Well, 3 weeks after Obama's election, and you are discounting that Obama is very well aware

of some of what you point out...which is why I believe you to be one who underestimates Barack Obama at every turn, until you are proven wrong, again and again.

Note that infallible is relative. I'd say that he has been more infallible than other leaders in comparison.....so if grading on the curve, I'd say he's done just fine to date.

[bigtree]

78. well,

. . . if I am 'underestimating' him, that would be a good thing. I'll readily acknowledge progress from him and will eagerly highlight his accomplishments.

But, it isn't as out of hand as you assert to be unimpressed that Bush holdovers in the Pentagon leadership are comfortable with our new president. Many of them should stand before a tribunal with Bush for the war crimes they've committed.

[stillcool]

73. I can rationalize the decision to leave..

him in place for a year. I'm hoping that in a years time when Wes Clark is able to take over the position he will be appointed, although I'm not sure what difference it makes. I don't get the warm and fuzzies for any career military person or spook. It is the nature of their business that makes me wary. I can see corporate military policy changing ever so slightly...not because of new management, but because of new missions. That said, I am confident that military action at the behest of business interests will not be changing any time soon...unless we can no longer afford it. I don't get why the Defense Industry should be beholden to our 'business interests', seeing as how our business interests are global, and have no allegiance to any country, except for the military might that country provides. From what I've written it is obvious that I am clueless about our National Security Agencies, and what job it is they do on behalf of the people of this country.

[merh]

80. I think you miss the point.

What if the military leaders were NOT impressed by GWB but were only doing what he wanted because he was CnC?

What if the military leaders are impressed with Obama because he has a grasph of the issues and they feel that they will finally have leadership they can respect?

[bigtree]

82. that's your point

My point is that the opinion of these Bush holdovers in the military leadership who are praising Obama doesn't have any more value than their willing support in promoting and carrying out Bush's militarism, which I consider unforgivable.

[merh]

88. So you would just be the queen of hearts from Alice in Wonderland

and order "off with their heads" and begin with a whole new crop of folks?

Thank goodness you weren't the one that won the office.

[bigtree]

90. In the military leadership, yes

. . . figuratively. Certainly there are good candidates for these positions out there who share our Democratic values. Those values should be seen as prudent enough to expect the military leadership under Pres. Obama to share them.

[merh]

97. Then you are totally clueless about the military

but that is apparent given your OP and the assumption that new folks would be better prepared to handle the situation.

[bigtree]

100. There are plenty of 'career' military folks who share our Democratic values

. . . and have refused to serve in the Bush leadership.

The 'clueless' crack typically accompanies a weak and insecure argument. I continually expect better responses here than that.

[merh]

101. And you are totally clueless if any of those you are condemning

share our views as well, you have just assumed they don't because they have obeyed the CnC.

The clueless crack is appropriate given your closed minded and uninformed opinion. I've come to not expect better of some here, you would be on that list.

[bigtree]

103. nice

I didn't read any of this love for Bush's military leaders here during his term. I opposed all of them throughout their willing waging of aggression in Iraq. Now I'm supposedly 'clueless' about wanting them removed (according to you).

What about those who left on their own in opposition? Do those courageous acts have any value to you? We need more of that integrity at the Pentagon - not just token re-arranging of principals, but systemic change in the culture which tolerated, promoted, and implemented Bush's autocratic, anti-democratic imperialism, expansionism, and aggression abroad.

[merh]

105. I know that it is very hard to understand (as is apparent from your posts)

but military people are trained to follow their leader - the CnC. The disagreement has always been with the CnC - the follow that turned the GWOT into some advertizing slogan and some military campaign rather than the national security mission that involved a coordinated effort of LEO, the intel agencies and the military. You know, the fellow that lied about the terrorists attacks, the ones he was warned would happen, the fellow that refused to use diplomacy and insisted on brute force even when Saddam offered to go into exile, even with the Taliban offered us OBL on a silver platter and were willing to negotiate to have the hostilities stop and the sanctions lifted.

Your damning the folks who were following their CnC without knowing what they believe, who they voted for, how much hell they went through in following the orders is just small minded and very, very childish.

The majority of folks in the military are honorable folks that hate war and that signed on to serve, not to destroy. Your broad brush is unfair and sloppy.

[bigtree]

106. I'm not damning the rank-and-file and you should know that. It's a cheap shot to suggest that I am

The military leadership I'm referring to and the ones reported as meeting privately with and being accepting of Obama are not the folks you describe. The military leadership at the Pentagon may well be hierarchical, but the leadership positions we're talking about here are appointed and voluntary. 'Just following orders' only goes so far in those positions which have become increasingly political appointments, especially under Bush.

So back off of that trite umbrage. I meant nothing of the kind and nothing I've written here is anything of what you've accused. Those in the leadership at the Pentagon serve on their own volition and don't deserve to hide behind the consideration we give the rank-and-file who serve under them.

[merh]

107. No, the leadership also serves the nation, they're committment

has been to the USofA and to their troops.

I supposed you missed this:

Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Those leaders are doing what they can to protect the military and the men and women who serve, who are in harms way. They see the shades of gray you refuse to see and it is you that is using trite reasoning so it would seem natural for you to expect trite umbrage.

[bigtree]

108. That's your* view and I accept that (even as I disagree with it)

But, I'm not going to pay attention to crocodile tears shed for Pentagon fat cats.

[merh]

110. Who asked you to?

The subject of your OP is you don't like it that the military big wigs are impressed with Obama. Instead of being pleased to know that they are encouraged that Obama will be a leader they can respect, you are damning them and by association, damning Obama for not firing everyone of them and bringing in a new crop.

Obama has said, the change is the leadership he brings. Why can't you understand that is the important thing, that his leadership goals differ greatly from what we have had and that his leadership will result in change. Seems the military gets it.

And it might help if you wait until he gets in office before you start bitching about his policies and his leadership.

[bigtree]

111. no. damning them on their actions in support of Bush's militarism

. . .their voluntary actions.

And, it makes no sense to wait to criticize the Bush holdovers, or anyone else who presumes to serve the president - except, maybe to someone's misplaced sensibilities. This is a discussion board. Why should we be reduced to sitting on our hands while these folks are assuming their privileged positions of authority? What possible purpose would that serve?

I understand that the 'change' he has promised won't come without pressure. He's said as much himself. I only wish you would hold as much respect for that dissent as he encouraged in his campaign.

[merh]

112. Your immaturity is showing.

You don't walk in and ignore what is what, the successess as well as the failures, when you take over an existing corporation. You don't get rid of all the employees and bring in your own hand picked and untrained and think that you can make things work. You take over and let those employees know what your goals are and you review the records of those in your employ and you give them the chance to follow your policies. If you think it works that way then you clearly don't live in the real world.

Who knows what will become of those in leadership once he has settled into the office and had the chance for his administration to review the performance of that leadership and whether or not that leadership is willing to follow his policies. Time will tell.

[bigtree]

113. my immaturity? Hey, you're the one who has stooped to attacks on my character

. . . to supplement your argument.

I think that of all the agencies, save maybe Justice and State, the Pentagon has the most ready supply of career personnel who are able to assume responsibility there. That career force is what provides the continuity we expect when the leadership changes. These upper rank folk are Bush administration appointments and whatever appointments stem from those. They aren't Clinton holdovers.

And, I don't think that you are appreciating the severity in which I hold them complicit or the severity that I attribute to the actions of the Bush administration. They need more than a light housecleaning over at the Pentagon.

[gravity]

81. Most people are impressed with Obama when they meet him

He has got the personality of a real leader and it commands respect.

[bigtree]

83. that I can accept

He does impress.

[kentuck]

84. The military will respect a Commander in Chief that will not send them to war...

...unnecessarily. He will not ask them to put their lives on the line unless it is in the defense of our country. He will ask their opinions.

[bigtree]

85. I agree with that for most of the military

But I don't accept that premise for those military leaders who have willingly stood behind Bush and enabled him as he's kept our troops bogged down and even escalated that danger in an occupation that should never have happened in the first place.

[leftchick]

86. it bothers me too

centrist? or right of center? I can not decide. Praise from Mike Mullen makes me want to vomit.

<snip>

As Obama prepares to announce his national security team early this week, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.

But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.

Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate vs. ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few among their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld.

[scarletwoman]

87. "I thought we were hiring him to shake things up at the Pentagon." Not sure how you got that

impression. Myself, all I remembering hearing during the campaign were the standard Foreign Policy Establishment lines, like: "Israel is our most important ally in the region" and "Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons" and "We will attack inside Pakistan if necessary" and "Hugo Chavez is a demagogue", etc.

Obama is no pacifist or anti-militarist -- and neither is the Democratic party, for that matter. In fact, Obama isn't even anti-U.S. Imperialism, as far as I can tell from what he's said.

His main difference from bushco is that he wants to bring a greater emphasis to "soft power" as a first resort, as opposed to military action as a first resort. But he's never said he wouldn't utilize the military option if he thinks the situation merits such.

All post-WWII U.S. Presidents have had to make their accomodations to the MIC, that's the reality. I'd far prefer that President Obama have the respect and cooperation of the military than not. It's much safer for him.

And, who knows, it may be that the space of safety created by that respect will turn out to be just what's needed to make the kind of evolution of our country away from militarism that you see as the ideal more possible.

sw

[bigtree]

89. His leadership should at least reflect his own values

They don't even rise to that standard, in my opinion, not withstanding his own 'establishment' views

[scarletwoman]

94. Since his stated "values" are post-partisanship and cooperation, and since he's not actually

in office yet -- and therefore has only limited options in terms of exercising his "leadership" -- your post makes no sense to me.

You'd rather the military leaders he's met with NOT respect him? I just don't see how that would be useful. Military leaders have to follow the orders from the Commander-in-Chief, that's what they're trained to do. They followed Bush's orders because that's their job.

It will also be their job to follow Obama's orders. Better that they have confidence in his leadership than not.

I'm sorry, your argument just doesn't come off as very coherent, imho.

sw

[bigtree]

96. It makes perfect sense in that I don't believe that they're just rolling over

Either they're lying or they haven't yet been challenged enough to change course.

At any rate, I believe they're disqualified for consideration for carrying out change from the Bush Doctrine because of their roles in from their enabling support of the immoral and reckless militarism of their former boss. In light of their willingness to follow Bush anywhere, I consider their approval or acceptance of Pres. Obama repulsive.

[AZBlue]

91. Yeah, I'm not surprised.

You've never been a fan of Obama. Your concern is noted.

[bigtree]

93. no, I haven't been his 'fan' throughout.

But, you can't credibly use that argument outside of the campaign to deflect dissent from his actions or policies. And my 'concern' about issues surrounding Bush and his fellow militarists has been consistent from the beginning of his presidency. Note that.

[Qibing Zero]

92. I think there are two factors in play here:

1 - The military leaders think Obama will not go after them for their complacency in war crimes, and that he is hawkish enough to act 'responsibly' against those dastardly terrorists.

2 - The military is all about authority, and even it's generals will submit to whomever happens to be commander in chief as an appeal to duty over reason.


It's scarier that people like Kissinger are applauding Obama, honestly.

[jbnow]

99. Salon had an articlethis spring , interviewing military

officials at the Pentagon after Clinton's "3 AM" ad.
I saw an interview with reporter who wrote it. He planned to ask them just about Obama and Clinton but editor insisted he include McCain. Reporter thought it would ruin the article because obviously they'd all prefer McCain.

He was very surprised that though they all said respectful thing about McCain they did NOT want him answering that phone at 3 AM, his finger on the button, however you want to put it.

And Obama impressed them much more than reporter expected. He thought Obama's inexperience would put them off but in both cases it was. McCain was too hot. What was really needed was someone who was calm, cool and got even cooler under pressure

Some psychologist there had just done a presentation on presidential personality or temperament and had summarized when going over Clinton's (Hillary) how ill suited her personality was...except compared to McCain.

I think the article was called "It's 3 AM..." something. With those words and Salon McCain Obama Clinton Pentagon it should be easy to find article on line.

[Alamuti Lotus]

114. or Karl Rove, or Joe Lieberman..

However, there is a point of yours I would like to emphasize and make corrections to--

I though we were hiring him to shake things up at the Pentagon. It doesn't make me a bit comfortable knowing that Bush's military leaders who have helped him wage his imperialism and expansionism abroad in contradiction of what our party wanted or expected are 'comfortable.'

NONE OF THIS BEGINS OR ENDS WITH BUSH.... this has been a long-standing policy that will take more than "hope" of "change" to actually do anything about. Do not be surprised to see 'business as usual', because that's how it's been for quite some time and will be for as long as it is possible to maintain.