• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!

Err, I hate to tell you this, but the position of Secretary of Defense is a political office.

The Secretary of Defense must be a civilian in order to ensure civilian authority of the military. This principle of civilian authority is important to Western democracies because it ensures that the military is beholden to the government.


In order to ensure this, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of one of the military branches.

His overall responsibility is not to voice the opinions and needs of the armed forces. Rather, his overall responsibility is to administrate over the Department of Defense on behalf of the President. Voicing the opinions of servicemen is one of the many responsibilities he has to balance, but it's not his primary responsibility.
 
Err, I hate to tell you this, but the position of Secretary of Defense is a political office.

The Secretary of Defense must be a civilian in order to ensure civilian authority of the military. This principle of civilian authority is important to Western democracies because it ensures that the military is beholden to the government.


In order to ensure this, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of one of the military branches.

His overall responsibility is not to voice the opinions and needs of the armed forces. Rather, his overall responsibility is to administrate over the Department of Defense on behalf of the President. Voicing the opinions of servicemen is one of the many responsibilities he has to balance, but it's not his primary responsibility.

So, you would say the Secretary of State is a political office? I wouldn't say that. You very rarely see Hillary Clinton take part in politics. She does her job and her job alone. In addition, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc are not elected offices, therefore they are not political. I don't remember the last time I heard someone say "I'm voting for X candidate because he said he'll appoint X to be SECDEF". I have also never seen anyone in those offices run for re-election. If it was political, Pres Obama would have fired Robert Gates upon taking office.
Lastly, overall responsible doesn't mean its the only thing he's responsible for. It means he is the highest ranking official in our gov't that represents the troops, therefore OVERALL responsible.
 
I'm waiting for someone to blame this on Obama.
 
Re: Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan

what are you trying to say, Rev?

It obvious to everyone on the website, except you.
 
Hey, you're the guy that was in the Navy. Dudes sword fighting and stuff.:duel

Yeah, well I've greased balled more than one or two of you snappy khaki's. We had our fun in the fleet.

But in the port, we had each other's back. I can tell you some very impressive stories of some young Marine students I had the honor to instruct. I get goosebumps when my respect for the USMC comes out. I mean, them being Jarheads and all.
 
So, you would say the Secretary of State is a political office? I wouldn't say that. You very rarely see Hillary Clinton take part in politics. She does her job and her job alone. In addition, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc are not elected offices, therefore they are not political. I don't remember the last time I heard someone say "I'm voting for X candidate because he said he'll appoint X to be SECDEF". I have also never seen anyone in those offices run for re-election. If it was political, Pres Obama would have fired Robert Gates upon taking office.
Lastly, overall responsible doesn't mean its the only thing he's responsible for. It means he is the highest ranking official in our gov't that represents the troops, therefore OVERALL responsible.

You are under a ton of misconceptions.

1) The word "politics" comes from the word "policy" - as in which policies the government should enact. Cabinet positions such as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, as well as all other Cabinet positions, execute laws for those government agencies under their purviews on behalf of the President.

2) Just because something is based on politics does not necessarily mean it is based on partisanship. The reason why Obama kept Robert Gates was because Obama wanted to maintain institutional continuity of the military since we're fighting 3 wars. Also, Obama and Gates seemed to have the same ideas regarding the administration of the military despite being from different parties.

3) As you said, executive positions are appointed, not elected. But that doesn't mean they aren't political. Since, because they are government positions, they are innately political. Since those positions help determine and enforce government policies.

4) Yes, the Secretary of Defense is the highest ranking official that represents our servicemen. Even so, the representation of our servicemen is not his primary responsibility. That was the point I had made.
 
1) The word "politics" comes from the word "policy" - as in which policies the government should enact. Cabinet positions such as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, as well as all other Cabinet positions, execute laws for those government agencies under their purviews on behalf of the President.
It also means,
Idiom
8. play politics,
a. to engage in political intrigue, take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc.; exploit a political system or political relationships.
b. to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.
Politics | Define Politics at Dictionary.com
Clearly this is not what the SECDEF is supposed to do. Also, I will be more clear in my use of the word "politics" next time. Funny how you were the only guy who found issue with my usage of that word though.
2) Just because something is based on politics does not necessarily mean it is based on partisanship. The reason why Obama kept Robert Gates was because Obama wanted to maintain institutional continuity of the military since we're fighting 3 wars. Also, Obama and Gates seemed to have the same ideas regarding the administration of the military despite being from different parties.
See definition above. Obama tends to practice that defintion of politics more than the definition you put forth. Also, and this is just me, I believe that all politicians weight the "political" backlash with every appointment they make. Example, Hillary Clintion. Obama was criticized as being smarmy and condescending towards her during the campaign. In addition, her husband is a champion for the Dem Party. It was a political win for him as well as the fact he thought she'd do a good job.

3) As you said, executive positions are appointed, not elected. But that doesn't mean they aren't political. Since, because they are government positions, they are innately political. Since those positions help determine and enforce government policies.
They are political in the sense I described above. Not, I believe, in the way you describe. I believe the offices I described are the most unaffected by partisanship. They do, for the most part, what is right by the people. When they don't, they get hammered like AG Holder is right now. He has delved into the politics I describe is now lauded by both parties.

4) Yes, the Secretary of Defense is the highest ranking official that represents our servicemen. Even so, the representation of our servicemen is not his primary responsibility. That was the point I had made.

I agree with you. It isn't his primary responsibility and I never said it was. I simply said he is overall responsible for it, which he is.
(C) include a description of the means by which the Department of Defense will maintain the capability to reconstitute or expand the defense capabilities and programs of the armed forces of the United States on short notice to meet a resurgent or increased threat to the national security of the United States;
(D) reflect, in the overall assessment and in the strategic and regional assessments, the defense capabilities and programs of the armed forces of the United States specified in the budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 in the year in which the report is submitted and in the five-year defense program submitted in such year; and
(E) identify the deficiencies in the defense capabilities of the armed forces of the United States in such budget and such five-year defense program.
10 USC § 113 - Secretary of Defense | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
I'm gonna be a genius by the time this thread is done.
 
It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.

Um...yeah!
 
I know that some may not see this as a big deal. For someone in the military, it is huge. Carrying your personal weapon (whether a 9mm pistol, M-4, or M-16A4) while "in country" is standard. As a matter of fact, you cannot enter any messhall without a weapon. The level of distrust shown to the Marines that wanted to meet SECDEF Panetta is just another in a long line of disrespectful moves towards our military by the current administration. I understand if we are meeting the POTUS, we lay down weapons. His office is a political one and can sew discourse in troops that don't approve of his policies. However, the SECDEF is not a political office. In fact, he is overall responsible for voicing the opinions and needs of the very people that were required to disarm to meet him!
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead. Many of our General's now-a-days are out of touch, snotty, 10 pound brain types who know nothing of the dirt we chew on the ground. Many of these men have not actually fought in combat. The most combat action they have seen is of the incidental type that happens to occur on their tours of the Area of Operations (AO). These men have read a few books, been to a school or two, and declare themselves "masters of the COIN environment". Sadly, history is repeating itelf in Afghanistan. Vietnam was THE demonstration of what happens when senior officers become involved in lower level decisions. Apparently none of our General's read that in any book.
So, what say you. Is it disrespectful for the SECDEF and Major General Gurganus to require the Marines to lay down their arms?
Marines told to disarm before Panetta speech – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

That's a huge slap-in-the-face.

There's something seriously wrong, when the SECDEF doesn't trust his own men.
 
It's not like there haven't been troops running amok lately, and somebody welcomed him in country by driving a blazing car onto the runway when he landed. You can see why the possibility of a firefight in the hall didn't appeal.

Really? If that is your rationale for disarming the marines you are visiting...stay the **** home.
 
At the risk of sounding redundant, I still think a half-dozen barehanded United States Marines can rip the heads off of 30 Ali-baba mother****ers, armed to the teeth, and then **** down their camel loving neck.

But that's just me.
 
In addition, the General that gave the order to disarm is a pinhead.

if that's the case how to you blame it on the Obama administration? Do you seriously think he had anything to do with it. Ot would be like blaming Bush directory for Abu Gharib, and I'm not aware of too many people that did that.
 
I don't blame nothing but war. War is hell. Welcome to hell.
 
1) The word "politics" comes from the word "policy" - as in which policies the government should enact. Cabinet positions such as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, as well as all other Cabinet positions, execute laws for those government agencies under their purviews on behalf of the President.

No. They both come the greek word polis--which means city or body of citizens. They have the same root word but neither comes from the other.
 
if that's the case how to you blame it on the Obama administration? Do you seriously think he had anything to do with it. Ot would be like blaming Bush directory for Abu Gharib, and I'm not aware of too many people that did that.

Did you read the OP?
 
if that's the case how to you blame it on the Obama administration? Do you seriously think he had anything to do with it. Ot would be like blaming Bush directory for Abu Gharib, and I'm not aware of too many people that did that.

Unless I'm missing it, the first time Obamas name was mentioned with regard to 'blame' was post 81. Might want to check it and see what that suggests...about you.
 
You down with the OP?

Yeah, you know me.

 
Back
Top Bottom