Civilians

[H2O Man]

"The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world."
-- Tennyson; Ulysses

There is an interesting thread on DU:GD-P, posted by Bigtree, which asks a valid question: where will Senator Barack Obama get his advice on military affairs, if he becomes the democratic nominee and President of the United States?

Senator Obama, like Senator Clinton, does not have military experience. Both have to rely upon the judgement of those who have had military experience. I think this is an important consideration.

I also think that we need to consider which of the two has the ability to judge international affairs in a larger scope: our nation's history since WW2 has been one in which the military has gained far too much influence in the fields which should be civilian: these include, but are not limited to, national politics and the corporate media.

With JFK, we had a president who had the judgement which allowed his administration to avoid a potentially nuclear confrontation in Cuba -- and this was based on President Kennedy's moral philosophy, rather than military advice. With Bush2, we see the problems with having a president who is willing to front for the military industrial complex.

Edmund Burke pointed out that a moral philosopher "has only the general view of society; ...the statesman has a number of circumstances to combine with those general ideas, and to take into his consideration. Circumstances are infinite, are infinitely combined, are variable and transient .... A statesman, never losing sight of principles, is to be guided by circumstances."

Now my question: Which of the two democratic candidates is more capable, given today's circumstances, of taking the steps needed to return our federal government to civilian control?

[TexasObserver]

1. Without a doubt, Obama is that person

You ask a question that goes to the heart of who they are.

She's a power tripper, and will never reduce the size or power of the presidency if she assumes it. He probably will.

[H2O Man]

2. I think it is

an essential question. I look forward to reading the serious responses from those who support each candidate -- if there are more responses!

Thank you for responding. I appreciate it.

[blondeatlast]

3. Here's where I hope that a HRC presidency would look to advice from the first Clinton

WH--he had a remarkable Cabinet in terms of serving people, not institutions.

That is not to say I think either one is better than the other in this regard--I simply have no idea if either one is preferable.

I can't say which of them would be better--I had to vote my gut yesterday, since Edwards is pretty much out (my vote was largely strategic), but I fervently hope that both will have the wisdom to pick Cabinet leaders theat may go toe-to-toe with them sometimes--and even win.

[H2O Man]

14. Senator Clinton

has close ties to General Clark. If nominated, she will certainly consider him for a top position, perhaps VP.

[Alamom]

18. Comforting. nm

[blondeatlast]

19. BTW--thank you for showing there is reasoned debate about the candidates even in GD/P.

I'm in my mid-forties and when I made my primary vote yesterday, I was just stunned at the fact I had such a choice to make. With all their faults, it would only be possible with the Democrats.

[H2O Man]

22. Two things stand out:

(1) We have two highly qualified candidates for President.

(2) The problems that our nation faces -- even those resulting from the last 7 years alone -- are far, far too serious for us to waste time and energy in the irrational and ugly "debates" that have been making this forum less productive than it can and should be.

[ClayZ]

4. O B A M A is pro PEACE!

War is over, if you want it!

K and R

[bellasgrams]

7. BO is no more pro-peace than Hillary, she has stated her stance

what will he do? If he was a white man, he wouldn't have lasted this long. He's nothing but a cheerleader. All you hear is hope, change. What does he really stand for? No one knows. He doesn't speak issues, he just talks about change and hope. If he gets in he'll be another Bush. He thinks Reagan was great. His mentor is Lieberman. Has he told us how he plans to turn the economy around? Has he told us how he will keep what corporations we have left, here? What's he going to do about the public schools?, no child left behind? He's either to busy jazzing up the crowd or he just doesn't know. What about the illegals? He's not seasoned enough for the job. We have one of those now, we don't need another one for 4 years.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Jesus H. Christ.

You're a funny guy.

[H2O Man]

16. I would lump him

in with those who do not have an opinion worth listening to. There are numerous DUers who support both Clinton or Obama, who provide commentary that allows for intelligent conversation. And then there are the clowns.

[H2O Man]

17. I think that

Senator Obama may be one of the most capable politicians, as far as reducing international tensions without resorting to violence. Yet I do not think he would ignore real threats to our national security.

[ClayZ]

27. You don't mean the way bu$h ignored the threats, do you?

It would seem to me that by reducing international tensions, we overcome the BULLY status we have in the world. They teach problem resolution to elementary school children now.

As the world cries out for Peace, we need someone willing to facilitate PEACE.

We need a Department of Peace.


Time to change the mind-set, like he says.

I think Hillary tries to portray herself as tough! Obama portrays himself as able to see BOTH SIDES the problem. His world view seems more inclusive.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[druidity33]

40. whoever the nominee is

i plan on lobbying them to establish a Dept of Peace (preferably with Kucinich at its head).

I'd love to see Clark as the VP for either candidate. Biden as Sec of State. RFK Jr or John Edwards as AG. Joe Wilson as Ambassador to the UN. Dodd as Speaker. Richardson as head of Homeland Security. Jon Stewart as Press Secretary?...

And i want Bunnatine back!



And there's a few Dems we need to get rid of along with the Rs. Feinstein, Lantos, Nelson, etc.

Rahm needs to go too...

[annabanana]

38. I suspect that he would draw from the same pool as she would.

He hasn't been "around" long enough to have a seasoned "advice team". I don't think their approaches would be so different as to preclude significant overlap here..

[H2O Man]

39. I respectfully disagree.

In today's democratic party, at the national level, there are two rather large camps. In general, we might call them the Kennedy democrats, and the Clinton democrats. The Kennedy democrats include a number of those who were part government during the Carter years. There is overlap, of course. But I think they represent different groups, and Obama is being served by a seasoned advice team.

[annabanana]

42. Thanks for the info. I know very little of the inworkings of the party. . n/t

[ClayZ]

43. Jimmy Carter led by example!

My husband tells the story of Jimmy Carter turning down his thermostat, and we have had to wear coats in our house ever since! LOL (not really)

Obama has a FINE team of advisors!

[KoKo]

5. I would think

it would be Clinton, only because of her experience. And, that a Clinton/Obama ticket would bring in quite a few "fresh minds" (progressive minds who've been locked out by Bush/Cheney) into the bargain, if she's willing to take him as her VP and he's willing to serve. The teams of both sides would be a better "checks and balance" than we could hope for with either one running on their own with a different VP. They would both have access to excellent Military Advice.

By next November, I fear this country is going to be in such critical economic meltdown {with possibly more military interventionism} that when Hillary says she can "be President on Day One"...I have to know that what she is saying is the total truth of it. Obama and his staff will need time to get moved in...the computers cleaned out and the offices fumigated. Time to learn where everything is located and what the protocol is. The country could be falling apart from crises both real and GOP/Mainstream Media generated while he's still "learning the ropes." As much as I don't want the Clintons back...with Obama as a VP there would be fresh ideas from staffers and advisers who would have enough power (from Convention bargaining over those delegates) to thwart the Clinton "old guard" and keep Bill in the background.

I don't believe that either Hillary or Obama will be keen to let any new Neo-Cons back in and they are going to have to work swiftly to clean out the Neo-Cons, Constitutionalists and Regent University Grads that the whole Government is infested with. That's going to be a huge job...and if it isn't done swiftly then we can expect a repeat of the first years of Clinton I. I think Hillary knows that and so does Obama. Or, at least I hope to heck they do..by now.

Hillary knows the halls of government and which rooms in the White House are used for which functions and how the whole place runs. Obama has no idea until he gets there. The two of them together could hit the ground running with her staff's expertise getting his VP Office and functions going in record time. He and his staff could work on cleaning out the infestation in the EPA/DHS/FCC/FDA, etc. while Hillary works on the issues that Bush/Cheney legacy will leave behind in Pentagon, Department of State and DOJ.

That's my rambling 2 cents...of what "could be." I suspect that none of this will work out in the end though.

[H2O Man]

20. Some questions:

Recently we have learned that Bill Clinton was involved, along with a Canadian friend of George Bush the Elder, in a uranium deal. It resulted in the former president's charity getting a $32 million donation, with another $100 million expected. Do you think that ties like these make Bill separate and distinct from the Bush family in his business dealings, or does it move him into the same group? Is he going to exert influence on his wife if she becomes president? And do interests that donate millions of dollars to Bill's group expect something in return?

Those are concerns that I think every democrat at the grass roots really needs to consider.

[KoKo]

28. I'm sure that will be a factor...

but she's running pretty even with Obama. What do we Dems do with that? The whole system is so corrupted it will take decades to clean it out. What does Hillary do with Bill? Does she want to do anything with him. What does Obama do when the RW goes after the Rezco Association?

I know the Repugs will go after both of them. But, who else do we have? She's still getting enough votes even with all the scandals and ties to Bush that are already "known" by hard-core Dems who are voting for her in the primaries.

That's why I would hope if she ends up with the most committed delegates that she can be pressured to have Obama on the ticket. And, that he would take the VP job. It has to be a team effort. And, as I said, I don't think it will work out that way because both might dig heels in and reject it.

There aren't any candidates left to us who can be "clean." Maybe Obama will pull it off in the next primaries. I wonder whom he would pick? I wonder if there's anyone who isn't flawed that he could pick that would have the stature to balance his ticket.

Looking over the numbers at CNN for the vote, it seems more women voters came out on the Democratic side. The numbers are huge in some states. Some of those votes are splitting to Obama but with that high numbers for Women...it would seem Hillary and Obama are popular with both. Looking over the Repug gender difference the men voted more in the primary than the women. So it would seem Dem candidates aren't as appealing to Dem men as Republican candidates are to Republican men. So, if we Dems can hang on to the Female vote then maybe we need an Obama/Hillary Ticket and perhaps an agreement about Bill. Although how Bill can be kept out of the Whitehouse Personal Quarters...I don't know. It's not a good option...but we are heading down that road unless something incredible happens between now and the Convention. :shrug:

[Annces]

6. Just my opinion, but I think Clinton is more immune to manipulation

She has been vilified many times, and has not been the recipient of much flattery. I think Obama may be swayed with flattery and does not know the experience of being vilified.

[H2O Man]

21. From my family's experience,

I am confident that every young man in the United States who has skin the color of Barack Obama's has intimate knowledge of vilification.

[Recursion]

8. The "military experience" question

We have had four Presidents in history who had military experience sufficient to make military defense decisions without significant advice: Eisenhower, Harrison, Grant, and Washington.

The only military experience, IMO, that actually would translate into the White House is command at a flag level.

[bigtree]

11. we also need to consider issues like judgment on appointments,

military reorganizing and force structure, deployments around the world and the relationships between our military and other nations' security needs and desires, weapons and weapons systems acquisition, needs of active duty military personnel and vets . . . are all of these better managed by proxy or through some expertise on the part of the Executive?

[Recursion]

12. As a veteran

I would say in the abstract it's better for a President to have some military experience; however, at the level we're talking about it's "just" administration, which is pretty much the same for any department.

[bigtree]

13. thanks

[H2O Man]

24. Interesting.

I would agree with your four choices. It is significant, I think, that three served as president in (or very near) times when the military was clearly important to the nation, but not when it had the same influence it had during the Eisenhower years. One is always tempted to use his famous last address to focus on the growing threat that he recognized .... though he also helped advance.

James Carroll's "House of War" is a wonderful book that shows part of the process in which the military became as powerful and influential as it has. There are certainly advantages in understanding that process, and being able to distinguish between the potential positives and negatives for our society. Military experience is without question one way that people can learn. Yet there are others who have not learned, despite their experience. It's a tough question.

An odd note: people often joke about Al Haig. And certainly he was closely associated with some of the negative influences in modern history. Still, he did recognize the threat that the unstable President Nixon posed (though at a late date), and that experience led him to make what may have been his most important contribution to our democracy when Reagan was shot. He has suffered abuse for it, but those who know why he did what he did -- even though he looked mad -- appreciate it.

[blondeatlast]

9. Neither--unless one or the other has people that pay attention to blogs like DU.

We're ahead of the curve on so many things--Iraq, the economy, Iran, etc. and I've seen some real foresight here.

So much untapped brilliance here; nearly every day I read something that just makes me think "Whay hasn't anyone considered that before?"

But it seems clear that DC is NOT paying attention (well, aside from GWB/Cheney, and the DHS) to the voice of the people.

There's an invisible wall around DC that consists of the politicos, the lobbyists, and the "press" and they have no idea whatsoever how life is out here past the gates.

[H2O Man]

25. I think that

what might be a surprising number of connected people are familiar with DU. I do not mean the people who do a poor job of lobbying or that type of thing. But I think some interesting people do read the best of DU.

[rosesaylavee]

10. I really don't know anymore.

Neither one has truly been my candidate though I had to choose yesterday. I would hope that whoever the DEM nominee is, that he/she will still listen to the people once they are in the WH and ask for a commitment of attention, ideas and action from everyday people.

Saw on one of the network talking head shows last night - think it was ABC -where some young woman was reporting what bloggers were saying on Facebook. She invited young people to get on Facebook and tell ABC just what it would take for them to vote as the voter turnout in the under-30 crowd was less than anticipated. IPODs, Pizza, etc. were floated as inticements. Excuse me!!! but what the hell is that about? Whatever happened to civic involvement as an ideal for Americans? We truly NEED everyone on board, All Americans, to solve the problems going forward - Climate Change, Peak Oil, Recession/Depression... we will truly need to pull together to get through the next 8-16 years.

And if we decide we want to spend our energy on wars, then so be it. There goes the United States down the stink hole. We will NOT have money for both wars and for our failing society. That's the bottom line.

[mmonk]

23. As long as it's not Holbrooke

Obama's ok.

[hedgehog]

26. Bill Clinton was unable to control the military on a basic policy

question; opening the military to gays evolved into "Don't ask, don't tell" because he gave the order and the military said "No". For comparison, consider what happened when Harry Truman ordered the Armed Forces to integrate. There were a lot of bumps along the way, but some people consider the military the most color blind institution in this country today.

Maybe this is getting off topic; but what did Bill CLinton do to force the military to address sexual violence in the years following the Tail hook Scandal (1991)?

And yes, I know it's Ms. Hillary that is running, not Bill, but she counts those years as part of her experience.

[KoKo]

29. I wonder what her relationship would be with the military...

It would be interesting to see her "salute" as she steps off Air Force I. She would need someone with great respect to maneuver. I know some hope for Wes Clarke but that would be awkward..having your VP handle the Military would make me think of Cheney to Bush.

I wonder how the Military would deal with Obama? Having to give that "salute" is difficult. Bill Clinton was razzed for it over and over because he didn't serve in Vietnam. Reagan handled it because I think most folks thought like John Wayne ...that Reagan had really served in WWII. :rofl: Carter served and Chimperor at least could pretend he served.

It will be interesting to see how either Hillary or Obama handle the military...the salutes and all the rest.

[hedgehog]

30. It's my understanding that it is actually improper for the President as a civilian

to return a military salute. I don't know what the proper response or acknowledgment is. It's my understanding that Reagan started it because he liked to play soldier and justified it by calling himself Commander-in-Chief.

[KoKo]

31. It seems they continued it with Clinton....and I wonder

if what you say is true, then if either Obama or Hillary wouldn't rather just drop the whole thing.

[conning]

32. It seems that almost all of our political leaders

see the United States as continuing to be a hegemon, the leading country, the policeman of the world. Perhaps most of our citizenry sees it that way, too. If you were able to back away from that conceit, the relationship between the civilian and military would become one in which the civilian power was dominant.

Our declining economic status, in tandem with our declining energy, makes our continued stance of world hegemon increasingly untenable.

We may continue to hope that "yes, we can," but to continue to believe that we can be "number 1" is an exercise in nostalgia.

In this larger sense, there is probably not that much difference between Obama and Clinton.

[KoKo]

37. Like with the Sports Mania that infects our Society...what Politician would ever

want to say: "America isn't Number One, anymore" because Bush/Cheney finished off any credibility we had..and ruined our economy in the process so we are now "beggars" to the emerging markets like China, Arabia and India.

This is the NeoCon Legacy. This is the Bush Family Legacy plus the Christian Coalition for Social Justice...their Social Justice. That unholy alliance.

[NashVegas]

33. A POTUS Can't Do That Alone - He / She Would Need All of Our Help

Honestly.

I think it would take two huge commitments on the part of the higher income / higher educated electorate: enlisting or commissioning on one hand, while non-enlistees being more vocal in our support to them at the same time. Remember the adage: change from within.

Bill Clinton had the dubious fortune to preside over the "peace dividend," when so many bases were taken offline. He was hated for that in some quarters, and for his clumsiness in dealing with the military, in general.

I would expect about the same from Obama. Hillary may have learned, if she was watching closely.

[KoKo]

34. I wonder if Clinton's advisers weren't much more cautious and savvy than Bush/Cheney

who relied and lived off the Neo-Con's "rabid dog" foreign policy? Even Poppy didn't "go to Baghdad" and Clinton did horrible things to prove he wasn't a "weak, draft dodging President" and he set up stuff that allowed Bush II to do what he has done because he was pressured by the "then silent" NeoCons to invade Haiti and do stuff in Kosovo and other American Incursions ...

But, I do believe that had Clinton served a Third Term ...there would NEVER HAVE BEEN "9/11." I guess I'm very innocent in my trust about that. And...yes...I've read Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Kevin Phillips.. I know the evils of BIll/Hillary..but I guess I have to know "quantify" on a "scale" how EVILS weight between Clintons and Bush/Cheney.

[H2O Man]

35. With a Gore presidency,

which should have followed the Clinton years, what took place on 9/11 would not and could not have happened in the manner it did.

[KoKo]

36. ahhh...the pain of that...

and that he was cut out of running ever again. It's a sore wound. It will never be healed for me.

[puebloknot]

41. From a young age, Obama has had the personal experience...

...of understanding diversity -- in his own bloodlines, and in the variety of peoples he was exposed to when he was growing up. That's a kind of experience that doesn't come from a university degree alone, and I consider it one of his strengths. Going to war is all too often a case of fantasizing over dominating the "Other." I can imagine that Obama would more likely have a "30-second delay" built into his thinking than others who might lead this nation.

I don't know yet who I will vote for, but I want to hear from both candidates that they will, indeed, rein in the power of the military where it has careened out of control, and that they will give credence to Kucinich's proposal for a Department of Peace.

When I first heard of that proposal from Dennis Kucinich, I thought it sounded naive. But as I've considered it, I've come to realize that we have to start somewhere with using diplomacy -- beginning in the home, and radiating out into our relations with other nations -- as a first consideration.

We need politicians who are visionary, but we also need people who can bring their particular magic to ground. For now, I am in listening mode with regard to the coming election. I cannot choose a candidate now because there is no one who has convinced me that they have answers to serious concerns -- and they are not forthcoming in debates, or individual appearances, with good answers.

Perhaps I expect too much. Some of our problems may be out of the province of mere mortals.

[Zorra]

44. It's a complete toss-up, given the prerequiste constraints imposed

by the "powers that be" upon the two Democratic candidates.

Which candidate is more likely to jump ship and tell their corporate sponsors to take a hike?