It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham suggested over the weekend that he would fire military leaders who did not support his plan to send 10,000 troops back to Iraq.
The Washington Post reported on Saturday that military officials had cautioned President Barack Obama against sending combat troops to fight the radical Islamic group ISIS in Iraq.
“I’m dying to hear from our military leadership on how we degrade and destroy ISIL with the current strategy,” Graham opined. “So now would be a good time to call [Defense Secretary] Ash Carter and our military leaders to our Capitol Hill and say, ‘If you’ve got a problem with what we’re doing, let me know. But tell me how this is working.'”
“Because if our military leadership thinks we’re on path to degrade and destroy ISIL, they need to be fired.”
I'd vote for you.
originally posted by: Answer
Graham has been the biggest war monger of the lot. He has some DEEP ties to the military industrial complex, apparently.
Luckily, there's a better chance that I will be elected president than Lindsey Graham.
originally posted by: Answer
Graham has been the biggest war monger of the lot. He has some DEEP ties to the military industrial complex, apparently.
Luckily, there's a better chance that I will be elected president than Lindsey Graham.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Nothing wrong with the CIC firing military leaders who do not share his vision--every president restructures
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Nothing wrong with the CIC firing military leaders who do not share his vision--every president restructures
Which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. If the military leaders are in lock-step with the President, that's how bad things happen.
There should always be a system of checks and balances in place.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Answer
Yea but if you're in charge of 300+ million, and SHTF, checks and balances is death when decisions must be made pronto. Definitely agree in theory, unfortunately it would be a known weakness to our enemies if a reality. They would advance on this weakness.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Answer
Yea but if you're in charge of 300+ million, and SHTF, checks and balances is death when decisions must be made pronto. Definitely agree in theory, unfortunately it would be a known weakness to our enemies if a reality. They would advance on this weakness.
When SHTF the most, is exactly the time when one wants to hear the counsel of men who know what they are talking about.
originally posted by: beezzer
I just wonder how many progressives and liberals here would suddenly go "hawkish" if Hillary suggests the same thing.