Eaarth

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The military is apolitical and they have to plan for the future based on the facts.

Now you're joking Neil.

The top of the military establishment is just as political as Washington DC or our own Wetstraat / Rue de la Loi

[roflwaffle]

How are they political?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Now you're joking Neil.

The top of the military establishment is just as political as Washington DC or our own Wetstraat / Rue de la Loi

Well, let's see... All officers start out as O-1 (Ensign for the Navy, or Second Lieutenant for the non-Navy services)

Officer promotions generally are decided by one of three methods.

A promotion board is convened yearly for the middle officer ranks (O-4 through O-6, Lieutenant Commander and Commander and Captain for the Navy, or Major and Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel for non-Navy services), where promotable officer fitness reports are primarily used. Each fitness report is scanned by the board (consisting of selected higher-ranking officers) for exemplary performance, as shown by taking on increased levels of responsibility with regard to their past performance, and by their ability to lead. Because of this, the selection board process is rather political in nature.

Promotion boards are generally convened for the lower ranks (O-2 and O-3, Lieutenant junior grade and Lieutenant for the Navy, or First Lieutenant and Captain for the non-Navy services), but they are primarily administrative in nature - if the officers being considered for promotion have kept their noses clean (no DUI, for instance), they are generally recommended for promotion. It's kind of a joke within the military to say that "they check to ensure O-2s are listed on the payroll, and they check to ensure O-3s are actually breathing."

It gets worse for senior officers (O-7 and above, the so-called flag ranks that consist of generals and admirals). Instead of a military promotion board that looks at promotable officers, senior officers selected for promotion are selected by the President of the United States.

Finally, all officer promotions must be approved by the Senate of the United States.

This brief summary of officer promotions comes from a commissioned officer veteran (myself). Neil, are you sure that the military is not influenced by politics?

[gone-ot]

...and, you gotta remember, the Commander-in-Chief, comes from one "party" or the other, every 4-years or so...

[roflwaffle]

Saying promotions are political because the senate has to approve them is a bit of a stretch. The senate also approved the HTF, but I don't think most people would say that spending money to repave highways is political. If the military really is as political as people have mentioned, then someone should be able to dig up examples of them flip-flopping on different things depending on which party controls the presidency and/or congress. For instance if the military was behaving in a political way about GCC, then we should see reports similar to the recent DoD report during the Clinton administration, and then a reversal of those reports during the Bush administration.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Saying promotions are political because the senate has to approve them is a bit of a stretch.

So would you say the same about senior officers that were hand-selected by the President of the United States?

[roflwaffle]

If you're correct about the military being political, then Mullen was appointed by a conservative, Bush, and should also be conservative in the context of GCC, but the DoD still released a report on the challenges posed by GCC among other things. If the military was really that political then with a "conservative" JCS we should see "conservative" reports, but we haven't. At the very least we should see a flip-flopping of opinion as we get "conservative" or "liberal" appointees, but we don't for the most part AFAIK, because our military is rightly apolitical and is mostly concerned about doing it's job as opposed to politicking, even if officers have to go through the senate for promotions, although even then there would at least be bi-partisan support for the most part.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

If you're correct about the military being political, then Mullen was appointed by a conservative, Bush, and should also be conservative in the context of GCC, but the DoD still released a report on the challenges posed by GCC among other things.

It does not really matter. In the grand scheme of things, the military is under the control of the President, whether or not the President happens to be conservative, liberal, socialist, whatever. Regardless of what party the President happens to be a member of, the military still has to follow the President's orders. It says so right in the Constitution.

It's one thing to note that the military drew up a response based on observed facts, and inferences based on those facts. This is one facet of what the military does. With regard to the observed fact that the average global temperature appears to have gone up about 0.6 C, it is prudent that courses of action be taken should the inferences also be proven correct. To do so otherwise would just be foolish.

It is quite another thing the state that the military is apolitical, which it definitely is not. This is my point. Presidents select senior officers for promotions, for top military posts, and for positions within the Executive Department that require military postings. It is unavoidable that this will become political, and so it is unavoidable that the military will be influenced by politics.

And it is still another thing altogether to point to the fact that the military drew up plans with regard to the observed rise in temperature of 0.6 C, and somehow state it is further proof that AGW is proven. AGW is far from being proven, and is not the same at all as proof of a 0.6 C rise in average global temperature.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...and, you gotta remember, the Commander-in-Chief, comes from one "party" or the other, every 4-years or so...

t vago added:

It does not really matter. In the grand scheme of things, the military is under the control of the President, whether or not the President happens to be conservative, liberal, socialist, whatever. Regardless of what party the President happens to be a member of, the military still has to follow the President's orders. It says so right in the Constitution.

Exactly. That's why he's called the Commander-in-Chief. Presidents often replace underlings (and everyone in the chain of command is HIS underling) with those who are of the same ideology as he is.

Anyone who does not understand this concept of power and authority is either in denial or terribly naive.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

If you're correct about the military being political, then Mullen was appointed by a conservative, Bush...

Bush was hardly a conservative. But compared to what? Or to what degree? This is like Aragonis' comparison of Stalin and Wilson, both socialists. However, compared to Obama, virtually anyone (except maybe Saul Alinsky?) would be considered more conservative...