Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Admiral Over Special Forces Pushes for a Freer Hand [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)36. It worked in Libya.
Edit to add: It worked because the US claimed it wasn't engaged in "hostilities."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
We tried that, it is partly what led to WWII and things like concentration camps.
cstanleytech
Feb 2012
#3
The request is only relevant to foreign policy because it's a result of the directives.
The Doctor.
Feb 2012
#4
Semi-covert US military presence - and action - in every country of the world?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2012
#12
More than that: let some little individual decide what nations to invade?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2012
#11
Dumb. They need to work with the rest of the military and the State Dept.
TwilightGardener
Feb 2012
#7
No Commander in Chief should allow any subordinate autonomous deployment of force.
denbot
Feb 2012
#9
Foreign military deployment on a whim of an admiral, what can possibly go wrong here?
Fool Count
Feb 2012
#10
He'd better be making daily reports to: DNI/POTUS; Chiefs; Sen. Intel. Comm.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2012
#15
Ah, turf wars! Those regional commanders don't like it when someone is operating in their theatre!
MADem
Feb 2012
#14
Who is talking about presidential succession? Way to completely not understand my point.
MADem
Feb 2012
#35
What he really wants is for the Commander in Chief to be unnecessary in the processes
lunatica
Feb 2012
#17
I wonder if the unspoken proposal here is more reliance on the mercenary firms...
Blue_Tires
Feb 2012
#18
This is why military leaders need to be subordinate to accountable politicians.
bemildred
Feb 2012
#19
At least its been declassified, to be thrown out to the public for discussion
Brettongarcia
Feb 2012
#21
Past or future? It's timely to look at this now. It's offered up for public commentary, after all.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2012
#26