Partisan behavior and pressure
Jason Dempsey writes about partisanship in his book, Our Army. Very good read backed up by analysis of survey results, specifically of junior officers. With a large majority of senior officers identifying with the Republican Party, there are clear impacts on organizational culture. Results of questions about pressure to identify with the Republican Party are also interesting.
Mod's Note: 'Our Army' was published in 2009 and a little more on:http://www.amazon.com/Our-Army-Soldi.../dp/0691142254
Oddly with one review and I noted this:
Quote:
Congratulations to LTC Jason Dempsey (Ph.D. 08) on his appointment to the 2010-2011 Class of White House Fellows.
.
Link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/a...low/index.html
A different twist in mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Now the bigger current problem is to keep the politicians from attempting to micro manage the military, as is happening in just about every democratic country around the world.
All politicians that tend to meddle in military-related affairs should be remanded to conscript military service for a period of one year beginning with the humble rank of E-1 to include the humble wages afforded to those who risk life and limb for their country(ies) :D
I was struck by acouple of issues here
First, does the excerpted item from the UCMJ apply to retired members of the Reserve Components (RC) who are drawing retired pay? Second, by tradition, if not by law, retired membersare civilians, not military. Third, what about active members of the RC who run for public office, e.g. Maj. Gen. Barry Goldwater(USAFR), Col. Lindsay Graham USAFR, and Beau Biden Del Army NG (sorry, didn't bother to look up his rank - 0-3 - 0-5)?
Third, to ODB's point about direct election - as a card caryying political scientist I used to sympathize with him. But moving from Ohio where I grew up, to Maryland (with many stops in between) to Oklahoma made me realize that in our Federal system it is essential to preserve the weight of state political culture in presidential elections. That is why our electoral system is really 51 simultaneous elections for president with votes weighted by population but guaranteeing all states at least 3 electoral votes (one for each US Senator and one for the sole Congressman guaranteed a state).
Fourth, different leaders handle their advisors differently. Some hold fairly large meetings. Some let their advisors run off at the mouth in those meetings. Some hold very tight control over what goes on. Some (LBJ) had minimal membership meetings with the Statutory members of the NSC minus his VP every Tue over lunch. The bottom line is that the only decider in the end is POTUS and the outcomes depend not on how he organizes his advisors but how he uses them
Cheers
JohnT
That was from Presley Cannady,
not me -- but you and he are both correct IMO.