6 Responses for "Soldiers Over Lawmakers"

1. Publius November 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am 1

   WHOA. I thought all of you told me just a couple of weeks ago that service in the military has nothing to do with one’s opinion being worthwhile on a policy issue. This is how you justified arguing forcefully in favor of sending more poor kids out to die while you sat back in your recliners and marvelled at your own courage in the face of Democrat cowardice.

2. David Shiffman November 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm 2

   There’s a difference between saying that a soldiers perspective is important when speaking to the families of soldiers, and recalling the a soldiers perspective is important when formulating policy. Thompson is playing to the crowd.

3. David Shiffman November 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm 3

   Also, is Fred not a “stuffed shirt in Washington”, and is therefore admitting that he knows less about the war on terror than many recent high-school graduates? This is not a qualification I’d like in the next commander in chief.

   I think that soldiers on the ground have an invaluable perspective that we can’t ignore, but I’d personally like someone with a masters degree in international relations making our foreign policy. Soldiers, for example, wouldn’t know if something exactly like what we are trying now had been tried in the past, and if that had worked. Soldiers for the most part don’t know the history of the region or many of the key players in the region today. Does that diminish their sacrifice or their courage? Of course not. But to say that it makes them masters of foreign policy is more than a little disingenuous.

4. Press 7 for Celtic November 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm 4

   Dammit, Sam. You’ve placed me in the unfortunate position of having to agree with Publius. Unlike John Kerry or “Ken Doll” Romney, I’m not going to be a flip-flopper here. I stand by the argument I made a few weeks ago- military service is valorous, brave, and ought to be respected. But it does not qualify someone to make important foreign policy decisions.

   I’m also not a big fan of stuffed-shirt finger-in-the-air Washington politicos making those decisions either, but that’s for another post.

5. Ryan November 17th, 2007 at 5:45 pm 5

   I think a realistic foreign policy would take into account both the opinions of the military and the opinions of those who received an education on such subjects. Often, talking to the average soldier on the streets of Baghdad will give you a good local perspective, but does it give you a good macro perspective? Not likely.

   This is why foreign policy needs to be built with the input of military commanders, civilians educated in international relations/military history/etc…, arguably lawyers with expertise in constitutional and international law, and arguably political experts who will be able to sell your policy to the public. The Bush administration has lacked a balance of these elements to say the least.

6. Sam November 17th, 2007 at 8:35 pm 6

   I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the grunts on the ground should be making all of the decisions. I am merely pointing out that the people on the ground have a lot better perspective than Harry Reid or Donald Rumsfeld on a wide array of military issues and should be listened to more.

   There were several generals that disagreed with Bush’s strategy and instead of listening to them he got rid of them. General Patreaus gave his report to the Senate and the Democrats accused him of lying. Don’t people fighting in Iraq know more about the situation there than a Congressman or Senator who takes one trip over to show their face, or never goes at all?