Posted on 12/12/2004 9:00:48 PM PST by Sola Veritas
I think it is time that we urge our president to "draft" General Tommy Franks to be the Director of Homeland Security.
I don't know about others here, but I don't want a "cop" or a "politician" for this position. I want a proven military leader. Except for endorsing President Bush, General Franks has stayed pretty clear of politics. I think he is the right man at the right time. I don't think Franks would want this job. That makes him and even better choice. Plus, I really think if the president appealed to him, he would accept.
The fact that he was a successful combat general speaks well of him. A good general knows that his job is to exhude leadership and to pick a great staff. It is a general's staff that makes or breaks him. General Franks would have the good sense to pick a diverse staff to give him input from many views from which he can make a decision. This is what we need in our director of homeland security - many views examined with sound decisions resulting. I think Franks is the general to get this done.
Well, that is one man's opinion.
No, we don't want a military type for this job... the Military stays in the Military.
He is a great general, but it takes a differnt kind of person to run the Homeland Security.
How about ZELL MILLER?
No Zell won't do.
We need someone who has actually RUN a large and complex
organization. That leaves out virtually ANY politician.
All they would do is start setting up a fifedom.
This is EXACTLY the kind of job for a General, or a Governor.
I can't imagine what your objection to Franks would be.
I'm personally insulted that you think Franks would do this and I'm astounded at your ignorance for thinking he would have that power.
This job needs an able administrator of a large complex organization. There is no politician that can do that except for Governors of large states. But Admirals and Generals do this all the time.
"We aren't looking to impose martial law on the streets of this country."
A good general knows his enemy and how to fight him. Ergo, he would not impose "martial law." I emphasize we need someone who knows how to assemble a good staff. It is the staff, not the general, that does the work. The general just makes the final decisions.
I do appreciate your concerns, and don't mean to belittle them. I personally am scared of a "cop" getting the position and was quite relieved when "Kerik" withdrew. I also think that a "politician", even one I like, can get this dones - too much baggage.
I think that a lot of people would resent, or at least be skeptical of, a professional military man as HS director. Never mind that our police force is made up in large part by past military/reserves.
He'd do an excellent job I'm sure but the distraction may be more than it's worth.
I think the issue is not that he was professional military.
I think it's a personality issue. I don't know why people think, that just because someone is really great in one particular job, for which he is ideally suited, he would be great in a completely different type of job, for which his temperament would be a liability, not an asset.
People, we do not want Military folks taking care of domestic issues. Trust me...
While I have no problems with Franks, he is still Military...
I'll have to agree that the military guys should stick with military issues. Franks is one hell of a guy, but the best man for the job is going to be a reliable leader with years of experience and accumulated wisdom in federal law enforcement or intelligence. I agree we don't want a political career-mongerer for this position, but someone with experience in law enforcement/intelligence, with characteristics such as maturity, good moral character, and know-how is what's needed for the task.
It has nothing to do with a militarized state.
Franks is great at tactical decisions, but running a large department is very different.
Too old .. wants a more leisurely life with his family .. counseling as he wishes to a well-known law firm. He will add a special patina, wherever he goes, God love him.
I'm on my way to getting old and Clinton is the only President in my lifetime that wasn't ex-military. I have a hard time thinking about relinquishing control to exclusively non-military.
I've been thinking Richard Armitage .. he's tough, fearless and straight talking.
yes and no...
yes because he is a hell of an organizer and would be able to pull it off with some form of success. Remember he did run CENTCOM and like every other major American command, he had an intel shop working for him there. It runs very very well I might add.
But I doubt he will do it. I honestly think he is the defense secretary waiting in the wings. If Rummy should have health problems or should decide to retire, we all know who should be picked....
Giuliani is still the perfect guy for this job. The problem is, he won't take it.
Why Guiliani? Just wondering.
As opposed to what? Invading a country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.