Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT
Bush LISTENED TO the Generals. That’s what I want from any President.

As a command model, I'd call that one "Listener in Chief." I want my president to be the Commander in chief, which means that the president is engaged in a two-way conversation.

At the very least, the president is responsible for making the large, strategic decisions, and to do so he needs to be asking questions and giving direction ... not just "listening."

Perhaps my view on this is skewed by the fact that I'm currently reading Churchill's WWII memoirs. He was -- rightly so -- deeply involved in what his generals were doing. The lesson one takes away from Churchill's approach is that there's a delicate balance between being the Commander in Chief, and letting the generals do their jobs.

Only a president who is intimately involved could possibly have the insight to distinguish between matters he must handle and decide on himself; and matters that are better left to the generals.

Obama, of course, has absolutely no context or background from which to draw -- he's lost and naive, as his egregious UN speech so forcefully showed.

So, in effect, we're presently without a real Commander in Chief, no matter if he begins to take notice or not. Longer term, however, even a president as inexperienced as Obama must play the game; it's the only way left for him to gain the necessary insight.

27 posted on 10/01/2009 8:47:11 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb

I don’t believe I want the President to be giving direct inputs to the generals in monthly conversations. I want the President to get the facts from the mouth of the generals, and then have the discussions with the joint chiefs and his secretary of Defense, and then issue orders which are passed down to the generals through the chain of command.

And I don’t mind the President issuing those orders directly and personally to the Generals, I just don’t think the relationship should be one where there are monthly two-way discussions with the Generals — it seems that would be too interfering. The President is the “Commander in Chief”, but only rarely does the President have enough personal knowledge to tell a General how to do his job.

I don’t want the President micro-managing the operations of the war.

I hope this clarifies my position.


32 posted on 10/01/2009 8:56:02 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson