Posted on Aug 9, 2016
The day after the election, how do we approach the President Elect with the realities of our current security situation?
2.76K
8
6
4
4
0
All politics aside. Take a deep breath. One of two candidates will be our next Commander-in-Chief. Clearly there are very significant issues with either. Our job is not to serve the person, but to serve the office. So, after the election, what priorities and changes would YOU recommend to the new boss?
Election 2016
Strategy
National Security
Policy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Hopefully, all remember to serve, not the man, not the office, but the Constitution. Obey every lawful order, but always remember the lessons of Nuremberg. And while y'all do that, I'm going on a Disney Caribbean Cruise with my children and grandchildren. Please make sure there's a nation for us to return to. Thank you
(3)
(0)
SSgt Dale W.
CPT Jack Durish You got the words in before I did. That was my exact thought as I read the OP's post. Now had LTC (Join to see) used the word respect instead of serve, the meaning would have been entirely correct.
Enjoy your cruise and family time!
Enjoy your cruise and family time!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why one of 2? there will be at lest 5-6 to pick from on election day. Why do we always pick one of the 2 we are have shoved down our throats? Time we the people made a change and elected someone other than one of the 2 top money players in the game, make a choices, DO NOT take the crap we are being forced to hear, vote how you want, our next President does not need to be either a republican or a democrat. Be free America, vote how you want!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC (Join to see) it is hard not to focus on your comments regarding service, even though you have a great question that you pose to the community. This point is clearly illustrated by CPT Jack Durish and SSgt Dale W.. That said I do believe you meant respect and you can clarify, because our oath of office is clear we obey the orders of the orders of the President of the United States...in accordance with the UCMJ (which takes care of that Nuremburg thing).
Now to your very good question, what would I recommend? 1. Develop a clear and understandable policy as it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan; to include ensuring that all enablers were available to support our warfighters. 2. Focus efforts on the VA to guarantee and improve the support given to our retired and injured and ill service members who depend up the services that the agency is supposed to provide. 3. Routinely and positively communicate with our force at a level outside of your inner circle to develop an understanding of the real issues that face our military.
Thanks again for the great question!
Now to your very good question, what would I recommend? 1. Develop a clear and understandable policy as it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan; to include ensuring that all enablers were available to support our warfighters. 2. Focus efforts on the VA to guarantee and improve the support given to our retired and injured and ill service members who depend up the services that the agency is supposed to provide. 3. Routinely and positively communicate with our force at a level outside of your inner circle to develop an understanding of the real issues that face our military.
Thanks again for the great question!
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir, my choice of words may have been awkward, conflating service with our commission to support and defend the constitution. My intent was to get the discussion off the candidates and get it back on our duty. While I agree with you CPT Jack Durish and SSgt Woodward, our obligation is to the Constitution (support and defend), we don't serve a document. In my awkwardly worded scenario, I should have made clearer that I was inferring the position of military advisor to POTUS. In that light, such service would be at the pleasure of the President. It was within this context that I hoped to get folks focused on our business - providing the best military advice to our civilian leadership.
So much of the discussion right now on this and other forums has devolved into, frankly speaking, juvenile rants that are more cheerleading than intellectual discourse. We have significant issues to solve: budgetary, manning, strategic choices, etc... I may be a bit naïve, but I'd like to see us discuss that instead of some one's ties to piles of dead bodies or elicit business deals, emails or speech gaffs.
I do appreciate the responses like yours and many of the others as well.
So much of the discussion right now on this and other forums has devolved into, frankly speaking, juvenile rants that are more cheerleading than intellectual discourse. We have significant issues to solve: budgetary, manning, strategic choices, etc... I may be a bit naïve, but I'd like to see us discuss that instead of some one's ties to piles of dead bodies or elicit business deals, emails or speech gaffs.
I do appreciate the responses like yours and many of the others as well.
(1)
(0)
COL Lee Flemming
LTC (Join to see) target! Thanks for being a leader in this forum. Your points are well-taken and are more than understandable. Great post!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google