As a veteran, it angers me when a president ignores his generals when it comes to decisions about war. From the start, Bush ignored for fired generals for speaking the truth about the Iraq war. Shinseki was "Asked" to resign for telling Bush and congress that it would more then 300k troops to win in Iraq. Turns out he was right. When bush mentioned the most recent troop surge, he also had to "shuffle" the generals around, because those leading the War in Iraq were opposed to the troop surge.
When ignoring people who have devoted their entire loves to managing war, and the ignorance causes America lives, should we not prosecute those responsible?
2007-02-26 05:07:29 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
BTW. I understand that he is "commander in Chief". I also understand that a c- average at yale DOES NOT qualify him as a military expert. Ignoring those that ARE experts, shows not only a total disregard for troop safety, but an arrogance beyond anything i have seen.
I also voted for him. I am also a conservative. This has NOTHING to do with politics. It has more to do with friends i served this country with getting blown away in a civil war that bush started by ignoring his generals.
2007-02-26 05:14:20 · update #1
Well, Bush has a lot of information coming his way, and a lot of the suggestions that he has been given would require political suicide (the draft?). Not excusing it, just trying to "rationalize" it.
Really, this war being unconstitutional (congress never declared war and they have no constitutional right to give the president a go-ahead without said declaration), the President should be in trouble anyway, his mishandling of the war notwithstanding.
2007-02-26 05:26:48 · answer #1 · answered by spewing_originality 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The military is subordinate to the President - that's where the title "Commander In Chief" comes from. (Don't you remember, the president is at the top of the "Chain of Command" every military member must memorize. Maybe you're not a veteran at all.)
If the generals don't want to carry out the orders of the Commander In Chief, they may resign - as some have done recently and in the past.
If the people want another president, they may petition congress to bring articles of impeachment against the sitting president.
It seems obvious that President Bush has not ignored ALL of the generals who have advised him as it also seems obvious that not ALL of the generals and admirals under his command have vehemently disagreed with his policies and orders concerning the implementation of those policies.
It is pretty much universally agreed that increasing the original number of troops committed to the ground forces in Iraq could have been raised by as much as 50K to 75K (not the 170K demanded by Shinseki) to provide extra security, communication, logistics and intelligence. The Marines, Army infantry, armor, artillery, air and naval forces were more than adequate.
2007-02-26 13:30:15 · answer #2 · answered by CJohn317 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Except the Constitution does not give war powers to generals. It gives them to the President.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
Using your logic, Abraham Lincoln should have been strung up. He went thru many general before the Civil War was over.
2007-02-26 13:11:35 · answer #3 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln ignored his generals and won the civil war because of it. After trying various generals to command the union armies, Lincoln finally found Grant and victory was at hand. It is the president that is the commander in chief not the generals at the pentagon
2007-02-26 13:13:21 · answer #4 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The president is the commander in chief. He calls the shot not them. I am sure he listens to the generals. Some he takes advise from others not.
2007-02-26 13:12:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why not just have military junta run the country? Seems to work for Myanmar.
To answer your question, no, it should not be a crime. That would put too much power in the hands of un-elected people (i.e. the same Generals to which you refer).
2007-02-26 13:15:14 · answer #6 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well Clinton did not listen to his Generals when they told him pulling out of Somalia would embolden our enemies...and Bin Laden sites this as the reason he did 9/11..so your argument does not hold water...your Bush hate is obvious...
2007-02-26 13:31:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The president is commander in chief. Lincoln & Truman both fired generals. Of course, if you are a US citizen over 18 & not a convicted felon, you can register your disapproval in the voting booth.
2007-02-26 13:11:15 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I guess you missed the part of the Constitution in which the President is named Commander-in-Chief. He is under no obligation whatsoever to defer to generals and admirals.
2007-02-26 13:11:14 · answer #9 · answered by Rick N 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It appears that stupidity and arrogance are not against the law. There are other things to consider that Bush has done, that will cause him problems for a long time to come.
2007-02-26 13:12:20 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋