Pattern Recognition

[Michael Tee]

McChrystal/Obama
Singlaub/Carter
MacArthur/Truman

Funny how military insubordination to civilian Commanders in Chief seems to be restricted entirely to Democratic Presidents, isn't it?

Can anyone think of an insubordinate military officer in the 20th or 21st Century who mouthed off at a Republican C in C?

I think you will have a growing problem with an all-volunteer force and a crypto-Fascist supposedly "non-partisan" American military.

[Plane]

Patton was unco-operative , but Eisenhour settled him before it rose to the FDR level.

Eisenhour of course wasn't president yet , but when He was he was a Republican.

Bush had a little tiff with a loose lipped Air Force General.


I suppose you would object to the origional Republican President being cited , but Lincon was the best example of this pattern you could have found anytime.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The enlisted men might be Democrats or apolitical, but the officers tend to be Republican.

There was an AF Colonel on the faculty of my college, a Major Baker, and he was 100% gung-ho on everything military. He was in favor of US domination of everything and was especially fond of military governments everywhere: he has a lot of buddies from that War College in Georgia.

On the other hand, didn't Juniorbush fire an admiral? I seem to recall that he did over Iraq.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suppose you would object to the origional Republican President being cited , but Lincon was the beat example of this pattern you could have found anytime.

=========================
When Lincoln was elected, the Republicans were hardly a party--they were mostly retread Whigs and abolitionists.

When the Civil War started. I think it is safe to say that the best West Point graduates ended up on the Confederate side.

McClellan never had enough men or weapons to attack. Eventually, Lincoln had to can him. After that, it got easier and he canned generals every three or four months until he finally decided on Grant, who was no whiz at West Point or anywhere else until he got a command.

[Michael Tee]

<<Patton was unco-operative , but Eisenhour settled him before it rose to the FDR level.>>

Thank you for trying to prove my point with yet another Democratic President, but I was not aware of any military insubordination on Patton's part that challenged civilian control of the military.

<<Bush had a little tiff with a loose lipped Air Force General.>>

I do not catch the reference.  An Air Force general was insubordinate to Bush or members of his team?  Who?  When?  How?

Also, since I knew you would drag Lincoln into this somehow, I deliberately limited my challenge to the 20th and 21st centuries - - you know, the ones we actually live in or lived in?   

[Christians4LessGvt]

Can anyone think of an insubordinate military officer in the 20th or 21st Century who mouthed off at a Republican C in C?

I am not sure it was "insubordinate" but President Bush basically fired Gen. John Abizaid, US commander
in the Middle East over Abizaid criticisms of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq.

President Bush also basically fired General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq because Casey also
opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq.

President Bush replaced General Casey with a man named David Petraeus.  

[Michael Tee]

Good effort, I'd forgotten about Abizaid and Casey, whose story is here:  http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html

Still, I don't see any evidence of insubordination or disrespect.  An honest difference of opinion can certainly be grounds for the C in C to replace any officer, since he needs to have full confidence in the officer's whole-hearted support.  As far as I can tell from the story, there was no disrespect voiced over the policy disagreements between officers and a Republican President.

[Stray Pooch]

When the Civil War started. I think it is safe to say that the best West Point graduates ended up on the Confederate side.

That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South.   Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents.  Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age.  And slavery would have lasted several more decades.  But if a bullfrog had wings . . .

McClellan never had enough men or weapons to attack. Eventually, Lincoln had to can him. After that, it got easier and he canned generals every three or four months until he finally decided on Grant, who was no whiz at West Point or anywhere else until he got a command.

I would have to disagree with that.  McClellan WANTED the world to believe that was the case, but I think he was just far too timid a general.  That may have been justified, given the abilities the South had shown, but Grant was able to win by just getting out and DOING it.  McClellan was an excellent trainer, a good organizer and an adequate logistician.  The union owes him a debt for preparing the army for the eventual use they got from more competent leaders.  But that was his contribution.  Lincoln was right to relieve him.  He was not a good leader, and not a good general.

[Plane]

The enlisted men might be Democrats or apolitical, but the officers tend to be Republican.

There was an AF Colonel on the faculty of my college, a Major Baker, and he was 100% gung-ho on everything military. He was in favor of US domination of everything and was especially fond of military governments everywhere: he has a lot of buddies from that War College in Georgia.

On the other hand, didn't Juniorbush fire an admiral? I seem to recall that he did over Iraq.

Trueman himself was an officer that served in France.

Like anyone elese Officers choose their political affiliation individually. Unlike everyone elese Military and Civil Servants are forbidden to act on these politics in certain ways.

I am mindfull that in the unlikely event that I ever have any governing authority I am forbidden to exploit it already.

[Plane]

Also, since I knew you would drag Lincoln into this somehow, I deliberately limited my challenge to the 20th and 21st centuries - - you know, the ones we actually live in or lived in?   

Oh well then , I shall now further limit the debate to only the events of the present year.

After all nothing instructive ever happened earlyer than January.

[Stray Pup]

That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South.   Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents.  Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age.  And slavery would have lasted several more decades.  But if a bullfrog had wings . . .

It didn't hurt that the Confederates were fighting on their land.  Although (and I'll grant this is off-topic and probably belongs in a separate thread) I hear numerous people from both political sides that slavery was already on its way out though they grant it would have still probably lasted up until around 1900.

Though you say decades so...

On-Topic:  Given that there are really only two political parties that have ever held power since the civil war, this could simply be coincidence.  I'll admit the only general-presidential disagreement I know many details about is the current one.

But I will say this much: At the very least Carter, Clinton and from what I can tell Obama appear to have questionable concepts of how the military works and how to be effective military leaders.  As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.

[Stray Pooch]

That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South.   Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents.  Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age.  And slavery would have lasted several more decades.  But if a bullfrog had wings . . .

It didn't hurt that the Confederates were fighting on their land.  Although (and I'll grant this is off-topic and probably belongs in a separate thread) I hear numerous people from both political sides that slavery was already on its way out though they grant it would have still probably lasted up until around 1900.

Though you say decades so...

On-Topic:  Given that there are really only two political parties that have ever held power since the civil war, this could simply be coincidence.  I'll admit the only general-presidential disagreement I know many details about is the current one.

But I will say this much: At the very least Carter, Clinton and from what I can tell Obama appear to have questionable concepts of how the military works and how to be effective military leaders.  As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.

Carter did.  He was a naval officer.   (Coincidentally, he actually had a naval engagement while in office - with a rabbit.  He won.  Seriously.)  But his one effort at a military response to the biggest challenge of his presidency was a tragic, horrible failure that cost eight lives and demonstrated how ineffective our military had become.   Clinton played patty-cake with a few token missiles when attacked by Islamic terrorism and Obama is tripping over himself trying to figure out how to dismantle our military before it wins something.  There is a very good reason Democrats are known for being untrustworthy with security - and that is why Bush won a second term in spite of his unpopularity.   Dems are well-known for being "green."  Unless there is a big upswell of people who live in terror that the snail-darters may go extinct, I think Obama has a hard run to re-election.

[Michael Tee]

<<As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.>>

The Constitution says otherwise, and the electorate seems to follow the Constitution.  Nothing prevents a civilian President from appointing military aides who can guide him through the technicalities.  If the Prez is halfway bright, he should be able, with some good, solid advice, to size up the situation and manage it appropriately.  FDR didn't do too bad a job of managing his war, despite his lack of military experience, while JFK, LBJ and Nixon, all with some military experience, collectively did a standup job of starting, totally fucking up and then losing the Viet Nam War.

[Stray Pup]

<<As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.>>

The Constitution says otherwise, and the electorate seems to follow the Constitution.  Nothing prevents a civilian President from appointing military aides who can guide him through the technicalities.  If the Prez is halfway bright, he should be able, with some good, solid advice, to size up the situation and manage it appropriately.  FDR didn't do too bad a job of managing his war, despite his lack of military experience, while JFK, LBJ and Nixon, all with some military experience, collectively did a standup job of starting, totally fucking up and then losing the Viet Nam War.

The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience.  It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

And we did not militarily lose Vietnam.  We have, in fact, not military lost any war.  Korea and Vietnam were both cease fires brought about by political dischord in our own country, not because our military was inept.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The entire Iran Hostage affair was a conspiracy planned by the Oligarchy to remove Carter from office. Kissinger told Carter that he had to keep those people in that Embassy, when it was clear that the Revolutionary Guards were likely to grab them as hostages. Kissinger has always worked for the Rockefellers and Exxon. That was Carter's mistake.

Carter was no more to blame for the helicopter collision in the Iranian desert than Juniorbush was for 9-11, or even less so.
Carter 8
Juniorbush over 3000, plus all those lost in an unnecessary war with Iraq.