« Lois McMaster Bujold | Main | Have Mitchell Student, Will Blog »
June 4, 2007
Commander in Chief?
ere's my problem with George Bush as Commander in Chief: He is acting like he doesn't want to be a target.
This goes back to Ronald Reagan's Executive Order banning the targeting and/or assassination of heads of states. What a self-serving document (and I think Reagan was one of our top 5 presidents.)
It seems to me that if you claim the title of Commander in Chief and you send troops into war, you must take full responsibility for that and claim to be a legitimate target of the opposition. Likewise, if you go into war, as Commander in Chief you have a responsibility to target THEIR commander in chief. You have a duty to go after the source of the evil you claim to be combatting. And these days, a President should only send troops to war in an effort to battle evil on the march, as well as declare clear objectives so that the people supporting the effort know what the definition of success is.
And make it clear who the real targets are.
Reagan had a clear definition of success in his Cold War. "We win, they lose." This was thought simplistic, and yet it determined his actions resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union. But even Reagan failed the Marines in Lebanon. Because he was unwilling to engage the sources of evil.
George Bush has failed as Commander in Chief and in setting clear measures of success. Because he is hiding behind the Executive Order that Reagan signed, he is unwilling to go after one of the major sources of the evil he claims to be combatting: the leaders in Iran.
They should be the legitimate targets. But since George Bush refuses to take on the responsibility of being a target, he fails to target the real sources of Global Jihadism.
And therefore, we are unlikely to accomplish any of our heretofore vague goals.
Either go to war and own it, or don't go at all. Either define success in clear and unambiguous terms, or don't even bother to start. Unleash hell, or stay at home. No more pussyfooting around.
Our American military deserve that, at least.
Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by witnit at June 4, 2007 9:57 AM
Comments
.. mileage may vary, indeed..... but still, your words are ringing true.....
Posted by: Eric at June 4, 2007 6:31 PM
Wow. Someone actually said it. I've thought about it, but I've never said it in public. I am awed.
Posted by: Mahlon at June 7, 2007 8:29 AM
It isn't difficult to agree with you that any decision to go to war requires a clear goal and a concise definition of success. I find it more difficult, if not impossible, to rate Reagan any higher (and that ain't high) than Bush the second. The only difference between the two is Reagan had smarter people than Cheney and his neo-cons running his administration. They wouldn't have been stupid enough to get bogged down in Iraq. And Reagan certainly wasn't responsible in any large way for the collapse of the Soviet Union (see William Blum and the Myth of the Gipper: http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html )
Posted by: grnnerd at June 24, 2007 9:55 AM
Check out the audiobook of Peter Robinson's "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life."
It's a fascinating insider account by a man and writer with proven integrity.
Posted by: witnit at June 27, 2007 1:00 PM
