Quote:
Originally Posted by dekeguy
Couple of thoughts about this thread in general and one point about this quote in particular.
First, No one expects the military to be overjoyed by all of their assignments. Some of them can be downright unpleasant and some pretty heartbreaking. Further, the Military is not expected to be ardent philosophical supporters of any war. What the military is expected to do is to carry out the foreign policy of the United States and not to undermine it by public dissent. From time immemorial it has been a soldier's right to "grouse" about his/her job, his/her sergeant, his/her CO, the war he/she is in, or just about anything else that ticks him/her off. What that soldier cannot do is publicly do anything to undermine the mission. Our Army is built on the principle of civilian control. That is an absolute. If the Army starts second guessing what it wants to do or not do then we can expect to follow the model of countries where military coups are the normal way of advancing the political process. In the USA the military is the instrument of the government, not the other way around. If one does not like the way the government is doing its job then one must exercise his/her vote to change things. All military personnel can vote and all are encouraged to do so.
God help us if the Army starts changing our foreign policy on its own.
Second, as to the quoted comment, one does not accept a commission to the Academy. One accepts an appointment to the Academy and earns that commission if one is successful in completing a rigorous four year program. Its not an exercise in semantics, its a very crucial difference.
|
I respect your post but active military having a voice doesn't have to mean changing U.S foreign policy.....it could mean just giving the troops a good chance @ winning a war (however I don't agree w/ the Iraq war) ie..proper troop level & having enough body armour.
Threaded Mode
