SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Compost]

Too much variance to answer succinctly but at the level you probably mean, by US law, only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is at that level. Practically speaking, the service Chiefs are generally involved in providing such advice. On occasion, for specific issues, a four star Combatant or Geographic Commander may also weigh in. In the recent strategy sessions in Washington, all those were apparently involved.Such resignations are essentially a European construct, US tradition differs and here such resignations are extremely rare. The rationale is that if one resigns in protest, the Administration will simply keep asking people until it finds one who will do what is desired and thus, if one disagrees with a policy, it is better to stay and try to ameliorate the potential damage. There is also the factor that US tradition places strong emphasis on loyalty and adherence to the civil power, more so than is the norm in most nations.

It would be easy to say such an approach is self serving and less honorable than a resignation in protest, both arguably true. It is even more true that the rationale for not resigning is correct and the powers that be will simply keep going down the well until they find a turtle that will do what's wanted. IMO the American solution is more practical if less praiseworthy in the eyes of some.

There is the certainty that the CJCS will sometimes like every narrow conduit inadvertently act as an information cutout, upward and or downward. So all-in strategy sessions will hopefully become the norm.

But despite any all-in sessions it would be appropriate for every member of the joint chiefs plus the relevant theatre commander and the joint force commander to be able/encouraged to provide non-interruptible independent dissenting advice in written form, with a concurrent advisory copy to all other such officers.

The European or more accurately the British method of resignation as described in post 51 seems preferable, especially for ABCANZ forces. Any senior resignation closely followed by a public explanation - preferably delivered in forthright language - could be productive. And even a short conga line of resignees would likely be decisive.

Revisionism is a foolish concept.
All history is revisionism as told from the mind of the author

Agree all history may be re-visionism. But prefer dictionary definition such as “the academic discipline of understanding or interpreting past events”.

My comment that “revisionism is a foolish concept” was predicated upon its alternate use as a pejorative term by communists and socialists squabbling over orthodoxy. It is annoying to have a useful word subsumed by idealogues.

But on reflection such people should be encouraged to make frequent and energetic use of the word. So correcting myself: “revisionism can be useful concept” .

Well better to be paid handsomely rather than not at all. Perhaps, but that is dependent on one's value system.

Yes but many of yesterday’s active folk have already lost too many teeth to be paid peanuts.
________________________________________