One of the main talking points that the Clinton campaign mentions now is that she is better prepared to be commander-in-chief in these perilous times and that she could do better in regards against McCain. I am not sure I agree. First of all, if the question is about who is better at leading our country in war, I think McCain trumps both Clinton and Obama easily. Secondly, do you think that many people will simply reject that Hillary could be a better c-in-c, as she is a female? After all, war has pretty much exclusively been a male domain through out history.
Hillary vs McCain - Commander-in-chief
- Thread starter sak
- Start date
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
I think an effective CIC needs to able to hear the military leaders and weigh their expert advice to make the best decisions. Bush has repeatedly failed to do that over the last 5 years. The neocons who hijacked our foreign policy do not wear uniforms and they are still alive and kicking. All indications are McCain will simply retain them in order to maintain their failed status quo.
The disaster we find ourselves in today is a result of persistently piss poor judgement. I think Obama and Clinton would both be a big step up from McCain.
.
The disaster we find ourselves in today is a result of persistently piss poor judgement. I think Obama and Clinton would both be a big step up from McCain.
.
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
I am not saying that McCain will make a better c-in-c in my opinion. Actually he scares me a bit in that regard. I would prefer either Obama or Hillary.
My point is, when you use the readiness to be c-in-c as a scare tactic, you are not really looking at people who will dissect the issue and make logical conclusions. You are looking for a more visceral reaction. Why does Hillary think that people will instinctively think that a female will make a better war president?
My point is, when you use the readiness to be c-in-c as a scare tactic, you are not really looking at people who will dissect the issue and make logical conclusions. You are looking for a more visceral reaction. Why does Hillary think that people will instinctively think that a female will make a better war president?
J
jbroussard
Guest
I would have to see Hillary in a flight suit before I could make that call.
FondrenRoad
1,000+ Posts
Queen Elizabeth didn't do too bad either.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
eflow - I think both Obama and Clinton would begin troop drawdowns that significantly surpass anything McCain would attempt because that would be consistent with the recommendations of a majority of our military leaders not under Cheney's and the neocons' thumb. It's not that this message hasn't been made abundantly clear by career military leaders already, it's just that Cheney and the neocons still hold the reins and control the military message.
I'd also take issue with the claim that the surge has been a success. Overall violence is down, but as has been pointed out numerous times, violence stats as a metric fail to convey how bad things are in Iraq. Even so, at 40 US troops dead last month and already at another 23 US killed this month, that is hardly reason to cheer.
The stated goals for the surge were to create an opportunity for poltical reconciliation to occur. For all intents and purposes, that has failed to date and our military is at the breaking point already. Downsizing our forces at this time is an absolute necessity if they are to continue to remain functional.
On top of that, we're approaching the end of the 6 month truce called by al Sadr that incidentally corresponded with a drop in violence last fall. In other words, they can simply turn it on again. In their homes, they can keep this up indefinitely. At $2 billion per week with the physical and emotional toll on our troops, we cannot. They do not want us there. Am I being naive ?
.
I'd also take issue with the claim that the surge has been a success. Overall violence is down, but as has been pointed out numerous times, violence stats as a metric fail to convey how bad things are in Iraq. Even so, at 40 US troops dead last month and already at another 23 US killed this month, that is hardly reason to cheer.
The stated goals for the surge were to create an opportunity for poltical reconciliation to occur. For all intents and purposes, that has failed to date and our military is at the breaking point already. Downsizing our forces at this time is an absolute necessity if they are to continue to remain functional.
On top of that, we're approaching the end of the 6 month truce called by al Sadr that incidentally corresponded with a drop in violence last fall. In other words, they can simply turn it on again. In their homes, they can keep this up indefinitely. At $2 billion per week with the physical and emotional toll on our troops, we cannot. They do not want us there. Am I being naive ?
.
milk_monitor
100+ Posts
yelladawgdem
2,500+ Posts
Regarding John McCain; I got three words for you....
OLDER THAN REAGAN.
OLDER THAN REAGAN.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Juan Cole has some Informed Comments about John McCain and managing the ME :
McCain's Holiday from History in Pakistan;
Will any Old Military Dictator Do?;
Lies about Obama
McCain's Holiday from History in Pakistan;
Will any Old Military Dictator Do?;
Lies about Obama
I think the answer to this question depends on what you see the role of the President to be.
I think the President sets the strategic objectives for the application of military force, rallies political and economic support for the application of military force, and then tasks the military with the planning and execution of the military operation.
I am more comfortable with McCain being involved with the deliberations with our military commanders than Hillary because I think he understands how the military works. However, Hillary could be just as effective if she puts the right general in charge and does not meddle. As an example, it took Lincoln a few tries before he settled on Grant as the right general to lead the Army of the Potomac against Lee's troops. Lincoln gave each general time and opportunity to do the job before he made a change. He did not try to draw up their battle plans for them.
We get ourselves into trouble when we have too many bureaucrats in DC trying to dictate military tactics and strategy. There has been way too much of this involved with Iraq already.
I think the President sets the strategic objectives for the application of military force, rallies political and economic support for the application of military force, and then tasks the military with the planning and execution of the military operation.
I am more comfortable with McCain being involved with the deliberations with our military commanders than Hillary because I think he understands how the military works. However, Hillary could be just as effective if she puts the right general in charge and does not meddle. As an example, it took Lincoln a few tries before he settled on Grant as the right general to lead the Army of the Potomac against Lee's troops. Lincoln gave each general time and opportunity to do the job before he made a change. He did not try to draw up their battle plans for them.
We get ourselves into trouble when we have too many bureaucrats in DC trying to dictate military tactics and strategy. There has been way too much of this involved with Iraq already.
This thread has take a different direction than I intended, as I suppose is custom for all westmall threads ...
I agree that any of Obama/Vlinton/McCain could be a good war president and who will be better is difficult to ascertain. That is, if you approach it in a logical way, as people are doing here. but when you make stump speeches at campaign rallies about something, you are not looking for logical acceptance of the issue, but a visceral reaction. My point is that, the fact that she is a female might hinder her from achieving that.
I agree that any of Obama/Vlinton/McCain could be a good war president and who will be better is difficult to ascertain. That is, if you approach it in a logical way, as people are doing here. but when you make stump speeches at campaign rallies about something, you are not looking for logical acceptance of the issue, but a visceral reaction. My point is that, the fact that she is a female might hinder her from achieving that.
As Commander in Chief, it really doesn't matter if the person has military experience or not. Whether they are male or female. They need to listen to the advice of the experts in room: military, diplomacy, political, and something I'm probably forgetting. Take those factors into account along with what is best for America in the short and long term, and make the decision.
You don't want a President that will blindly agree or disagree with any one of the advisors. Situations call for different responses and each side will present how they can respond. Sometimes diplomacy is right, sometimes military.
You don't want a President that will blindly agree or disagree with any one of the advisors. Situations call for different responses and each side will present how they can respond. Sometimes diplomacy is right, sometimes military.
Ha - I'm in agreement with TahoeHorn. Rare event.
Bush 41 knew that while military force was required at times, you needed to get international support. Maybe he should have gone in and taken out Saddam but that wasn't the goal of the first Gulf War. He did what he set out to do. Mission Accomplished.
Bush 41 knew that while military force was required at times, you needed to get international support. Maybe he should have gone in and taken out Saddam but that wasn't the goal of the first Gulf War. He did what he set out to do. Mission Accomplished.
CottonEyedHorn
1,000+ Posts
WhitmanSampler
250+ Posts
How about Golda Meir?
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights
- Started by Austin_Bill
- Replies: 791
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
