I was stunned that Martha Raddatz questioned the Joint Chiefs integrity

[itsrobert]

during the debate. She owes the Vice President and the Joint Chiefs an apology.

[theinquisitivechad]

1. Every journalist wants to think they 'matter'.

Because foreign policy/military/war is her AOR, she wanted to contribute something. Unfortunately, I think she contributed in the most backward way possible by assailing the JCS' integrity.

[Enrique]

13. the good ones do

if they don't do that they are stenographers, of which there are a good number, a lot of them at Fox.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Fuck those guys.

[BlueStreak]

3. The Joint Chiefs are SUPPOSED to have allegiance to the CIVILIAN administration

That's all she was saying. Biden was suggesting that they offered an "independent" point of view. They aren't supposed to. We aren't supposed to be ruled by military junta. They are supposed to be subservient to the elected leaders.

And that is exactly why it is malarkey for Ryan and Romney to say they are pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014, BUT only if the generals go along with it. The "situation on the ground" has nothing to do with it. Afghanistan is where armies go to die. Just ask Russia. The situation on the ground will be about the same in 2014 as it is right now. I can understand Obama's desire to take a couple of years to try to train the Afghan military to stand up for itself. But if they don't do it, there is nothing to gain by staying around.

[itsrobert]

5. CJCSI 5715.01C says you are mistaken that they don't offer an independent point of view.

Principal military adviser to the President



18 January 2012
C-2 Enclosure C
The Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) advises the President and Secretary of Defense concerning the application of military power. In doing so, the Chairman presents his personal views (as well as any divergent views of other JCS members) and those of the Combatant Commanders.

http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/5715_01.pdf

[BlueStreak]

6. Presenting views is different from making the decisions

Of course they present their views. But we have CIVILIAN rule. The military is subservient to CIVILIANS.

The President can certainly listen to the military representatives, and no President would ever do otherwise. But the decisions are CIVILIAN.

Romney seems to be suggesting something otherwise -- but he changes his position every day and never actually says anything very clearly.

[itsrobert]

7. Martha questioned if the JC would have the integrity to give their own advice

and the advice of the combatant commands. The directive makes it clear it's a requirement of the job.

Nobody is questioning that the civilian leadership makes the decision.

[BlueStreak]

9. The context is that Romney said he would leave it up to the Generals

That is why she asked the question. Romney and Ryan said they agreed with the timetable except that we shouldn't have a timetable and we should leave it up to the Generals. She was trying to get to what real difference there was between the Obama policy and what Romney has been saying.

[itsrobert]

10. Here's the correct context

MS. RADDATZ: Some of the military — I know that's — (inaudible) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not some of the military; that was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That's a fact.

MS. RADDATZ: Who answers to the civilian leaders.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They made the recommendation first.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/11/162754053/transcript-biden-ryan-vice-presidential-debate

She implies that the joint chiefs are coward and wouldn't make recommendations because they are afraid to lose their job. Their job is to advise the President. A key part of integrity is being honest.

There's your context.

[BlueStreak]

15. I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of military leaders have been fired

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

when they clashed with the civilian administration. Their job is to make recommendations that are not just tactical field items but make sense for the nation at large. If they don't do that, they can be fired. That's the way it should be.

The bigger point is that in Afghanistan, it just doesn't matter what the military says. Thee is no "situation on the ground" that should keep us there beyond 2014. We have already accomplished the mission the president set out. We will never accomplish some other mission of transforming Afghanistan into a civilized democratic paradise. This administration's policy is to phase out by 2014 in order to give Karzai a chance to stand up his own army. And if it doesn't happen, nothing good comes by staying in there militarily.

If Romney and Ryan think there is some other scenario that justifies staying longer, then they should be clear about what that is. Given that opportunity, all Ryan could come up with is that "national security would be the determining factor." Well, we cannot occupy the whole world. We need some other plan.

[itsrobert]

16. My point is exactly what you just stated

If the joint chiefs did not make recommendations that are best for the country, they would be neglect in their duty.

I am not sure why you initially rebutted this with the fact that the JCS serves the President. A fact, I have never questioned.

[earthside]

4. They need more questioning.

The 'surge' idea in Afghanistan has been a failure from inception to the present.

I sure hope the Joint Chiefs and all high ranking brass that are making decisions are being intensely questioned all the time. If history shows us anything, it is that a military establishment put beyond being questioned and challenged has resulted in war, death and destruction.

Good for Martha Raddatz.

[bemildred]

8. Are they supposed to be special somehow?

They are employees of the government, and we fucking well do have the right to question anything they say or do.

[itsrobert]

11. Are you suggesting/questioning they didn't advise the President?

In this case? Why would they not do so?

[bemildred]

12. Why the hell not? Are their feelings going to be hurt? NT

[Enrique]

14. what did she say?

I'm guessing that it is something completely normal and non-controversial, but I don't remember.

[itsrobert]

17. Here

MS. RADDATZ: Some of the military — I know that's — (inaudible) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not some of the military; that was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That's a fact.

MS. RADDATZ: Who answers to the civilian leaders.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They made the recommendation first.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/11/162754053/transcript-biden-ryan-vice-presidential-debate

She implies that the joint chiefs are coward and wouldn't make recommendations because they are afraid to lose their job. Their job is to advise the President. A key part of integrity is being honest.