He is not micromanaging nor is he making the Strategy.
Actually, my comment against Bush was 100% a cheapshot not intended for anything other than demeaning him. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he's warring poorly.
"The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council."
sounds to me like as long as he has president bush's approval no one can argue with him. let the snowflakes fly.
Actually, my comment against Bush was 100% a cheapshot not intended for anything other than demeaning him. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he's warring poorly.
That is not what it implied, it implied that he was micromanaging the war and not taking hte advice of his military planners, which he has not been doing. But I am glad that you agree he is not warring poorly.
"The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council."
sounds to me like as long as he has president bush's approval no one can argue with him. let the snowflakes fly.
Thank you for that. It was not in the article, but it is what I expected to find out. So basically Rumsfeld is answerable to the president and if the president finds that Rumsfelds strategy is failing he can give the generals more leeway to do the war right (assuming they are doing it wrong now). Is that what I am reading here?
Nowhere in the article does it spell this out. It does state that Rumsfield is a pushy SOB that will not listen to his military advisors and that he has replaced much of the top brass with people who will follow his lead. But it does not state whether or not he actually has the power to control the military leaders or if he is just able to do so because tehy will not stand up to him. Which is what Groverat stated all along if you would have read his posts.
Sorry, I thought the fact that he is consistantly called the generals' 'superior' and the fact that groverat is an american with at least an 8th grade education would have made it pretty clear that the Secretary of Defence runs the defense department. But, hey, we shouldn't expect people commenting on our government to actually know anything fundamental about our government structure, now should we? Excuse me for having such high expectations. From now on I'll just assume that no one has made it to high school and that they don't even know what the hell a cabinet member is.
With your vast knowledge, giant, please explain to me how exactly Rumsfeld is legally granted the ability to give orders. The article describes him as a civilian.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
With your vast knowledge, giant, please explain to me how exactly Rumsfeld is legally granted the ability to give orders. The article describes him as a civilian.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
The logistics of this war plan, known as the tip-fiddle (TIPFDL) was held up for months by Donald Rumsfeld. He questioned every part of it, page by page. Why does this unit have to be here? Do you need that number of infantry? Why should you take that town first?
The logistics of this war plan, known as the tip-fiddle (TIPFDL) was held up for months by Donald Rumsfeld. He questioned every part of it, page by page. Why does this unit have to be here? Do you need that number of infantry? Why should you take that town first?
He was very proud of it at the time.
Ok, that's great.
Has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted me as saying, but I love you anyway.
Has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted me as saying, but I love you anyway.
BIG HUGS!
No, you see, the point is, Donald Rumsfeld can in fact influence the generals of the American army. And did. Quite a lot! So the fact that as a civilian he can't "give orders", having no rank in the American army, is irrelevant.
All right, puppets, let me try to make this more clear.
I KNOW he is influencing.
I KNOW he has interfered and that the military listens to him.
What I'm asking is this... DOES HE HAVE ACTUAL, REAL POWER!?
If you don't know the answer to that question, puppets, then shut your talk holes. That's all I'm asking. I'm not defending Rummy, I'm not criticizing him.
I'm asking for the power structure of the US goverment with regard to that specific branch and setup. Nothing more. It's like asking what kind of RAM to get for a certain Mac.
Puppets, disengage. I'm asking for technical knowledge and I know you have none of that to offer.
Jesus Harold Christ you hens need some medication.
Originally posted by groverat With your vast knowledge, giant, please explain to me how exactly Rumsfeld is legally granted the ability to give orders. The article describes him as a civilian.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
You think it requires 'vast knowledge' to know what the secretary of defence does?!?! According to this, kids are taght about the various cabinet positions in the THIRD GRADE!
You think it requires 'vast knowledge' to know what the secretary of defence does?!?! According to this, kids are taght about the various cabinet positions in the THIRD GRADE!
OK, kiddies, gather 'round. The chain of command for the US military, from top down, goes from the president to the sec of defence to military commanders.
I'm asking for the power structure of the US goverment with regard to that specific branch and setup. Nothing more. It's like asking what kind of RAM to get for a certain Mac.
You're asking about the chain of command and the National Command Authority:
Here's a relevant bit of info from a military site (public domain). The link is below.
Quote:
World War II and its aftermath furnished the impetus for unification of the Military Departments under a single cabinet-level secretary. Anticipating the needs of a peacetime military organization, an in-depth review by congressional, executive, and mili tary groups began even before the end of the war. The studies were influenced by Service interests that reflected the opinions of experienced wartime military and civilian leaders with vastly different views of the postwar future. Issues that dominated the search for a consensus included retention of air power in the Navy, maintenance of a separate Marine Corps, and the form and responsibilities of the new Department of the Air Force.
The National Security Act of 1947 was monumental legislation. After almost 50 years that included overseas wartime experience beginning with the Spanish-American War, a modern military organization came into existence. Unification of the Services und er a single department was law and the powers of the Secretary of National Defense were identified but subject to broad interpretation. The roles and missions of the military Services were defined by Executive Order but would not be statutorily defined u ntil 1958. The act created the NME under the leadership of a civilian secretary and created secretaries for the new Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
In 1949, the National Security Act was amended to change the name of the NME to the Department of Defense and to recognize it as an executive department. Further, it changed the role of the Services to Military Departments within DOD. The DOD Reorgani zation Act of 1958 strengthened the Secretary of Defense's direction, authority, and control over the department and clarified the operational chain of command from the President and Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders.
The role of the Secretary of Defense has changed since the position was established in 1947. Originally, the Secretary had only general authority over the NME, an authority shared with the civilian secretaries of the Military Departments. In 1949, his position was strengthened with his appointment as head of an executive department, reduction of the role of Military Department heads, and his assumption of budgeting responsibilities. Today, he is the principal assistant to the President for all matters relating to the Department of Defense. He has nearly plenary authority, direction, and control of the entire department. Moreover, the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 makes clear his position in the operational chain of command.
In other words, he be the number two dog in the military chain of command. He speaks for the president and NCA (national command authority) is vested in the two. So, yeah, he has actual power and can give orders, just like the president can.
That said, this whole thread is otherwise fallacious. Nobody is "turning on" Rumsfeld, except perhaps a few skipped-over Pentagon weasels who decline to use their names and have a knack for saying "I told you so" when nothing's even happened to warrant THAT exclamation (outside of the media, that is).
I don't have to teach you how to "Read three- and four-digit numbers" (from the 3rd-grade curriculum page), so why should anyone here have to explain to you what a secretary of defense is?
Furthermore, how do any of you think you have even close to the understanding required to make policy judgements if you don't know basic government structure taught in THIRD GRADE?!?!
IIRC, all cabinet level officials have an "equivalent rank" which the military observes for ceremonial purposes (seating, protocol, etc) and in cases of Emergency, such "other Leaders" (explicitly not the Defence leadership, who might outrank the military "under them") are treated as officers.
Specifically, in case of nuclear attack or state of emergency, there are provisional plans for the evacuation of politicians at varying levels of government with priority and precedence depending on the "equivalent rank".
Not sure how the breakdown works in the State/Federal levels, and often such plans are not public knowledge, but I have previously met Cabinet Members and Senior Civil Servants who revealed an "equivalent rank" of Colonel or above.
That's not the same as them having real authority or the respect of serving military officers willing to follow their "orders".
Rumsfeld holds power at the discretion of the President, but he's also in the official chain of seccession in case Bush, Cheney, Daschle, Powell, etc all die off.
Would've been easier to answer it outright, but I have a feeling you got caught up in your own bile.
Thanks for the info, finboy.
Why not thank superkarate monkeydeathcar? He posted your answer about 15 posts ago. I'd say ask your third grade teacher, but obviously he/she didn't do a very good job.
I don't have to teach you how to "Read three- and four-digit numbers" (from the 3rd-grade curriculum page), so why should anyone here have to explain to you what a secretary of defense is?
Furthermore, how do any of you think you have even close to the understanding required to make policy judgements if you don't know basic government structure taught in THIRD GRADE?!?!
Yeah, and everybody remembers all that they learned in third, fourth fifth, sixth, seventh, eigth and so on grade...Right?
Just because something is taught, time has a tendancy to erase some of what was learned unless one takes more time to reinforce said knowledge it has a tendancy to be repalced by more relevant knowledge, like say, how to reload windows 2000 server or what are the real specs of the PPC 970. Or maybe even more important stuff like, what is my wifes birthdate and when is my anniversary? Or perhaps how do i get from my house to work, or where are the best hamburgers sold in Portland? Other than that, an occasional question on military chain of command might come up like what, 4 times in your whole life if you are not in the military.
Your point was not one. And a simple answer would have been much preferred to your childish rant. Petty, to say the least.
Comments
Originally posted by NoahJ
He is not micromanaging nor is he making the Strategy.
Actually, my comment against Bush was 100% a cheapshot not intended for anything other than demeaning him. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he's warring poorly.
from the site:
"The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council."
sounds to me like as long as he has president bush's approval no one can argue with him. let the snowflakes fly.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, my comment against Bush was 100% a cheapshot not intended for anything other than demeaning him. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he's warring poorly.
That is not what it implied, it implied that he was micromanaging the war and not taking hte advice of his military planners, which he has not been doing. But I am glad that you agree he is not warring poorly.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
defense dept link
from the site:
"The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council."
sounds to me like as long as he has president bush's approval no one can argue with him. let the snowflakes fly.
Thank you for that. It was not in the article, but it is what I expected to find out. So basically Rumsfeld is answerable to the president and if the president finds that Rumsfelds strategy is failing he can give the generals more leeway to do the war right (assuming they are doing it wrong now). Is that what I am reading here?
Originally posted by NoahJ
Nowhere in the article does it spell this out. It does state that Rumsfield is a pushy SOB that will not listen to his military advisors and that he has replaced much of the top brass with people who will follow his lead. But it does not state whether or not he actually has the power to control the military leaders or if he is just able to do so because tehy will not stand up to him. Which is what Groverat stated all along if you would have read his posts.
Sorry, I thought the fact that he is consistantly called the generals' 'superior' and the fact that groverat is an american with at least an 8th grade education would have made it pretty clear that the Secretary of Defence runs the defense department. But, hey, we shouldn't expect people commenting on our government to actually know anything fundamental about our government structure, now should we? Excuse me for having such high expectations. From now on I'll just assume that no one has made it to high school and that they don't even know what the hell a cabinet member is.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
Originally posted by groverat
With your vast knowledge, giant, please explain to me how exactly Rumsfeld is legally granted the ability to give orders. The article describes him as a civilian.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
The logistics of this war plan, known as the tip-fiddle (TIPFDL) was held up for months by Donald Rumsfeld. He questioned every part of it, page by page. Why does this unit have to be here? Do you need that number of infantry? Why should you take that town first?
He was very proud of it at the time.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The logistics of this war plan, known as the tip-fiddle (TIPFDL) was held up for months by Donald Rumsfeld. He questioned every part of it, page by page. Why does this unit have to be here? Do you need that number of infantry? Why should you take that town first?
He was very proud of it at the time.
Ok, that's great.
Has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted me as saying, but I love you anyway.
BIG HUGS!
Originally posted by groverat
Ok, that's great.
Has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted me as saying, but I love you anyway.
BIG HUGS!
No, you see, the point is, Donald Rumsfeld can in fact influence the generals of the American army. And did. Quite a lot! So the fact that as a civilian he can't "give orders", having no rank in the American army, is irrelevant.
I KNOW he is influencing.
I KNOW he has interfered and that the military listens to him.
What I'm asking is this... DOES HE HAVE ACTUAL, REAL POWER!?
If you don't know the answer to that question, puppets, then shut your talk holes. That's all I'm asking. I'm not defending Rummy, I'm not criticizing him.
I'm asking for the power structure of the US goverment with regard to that specific branch and setup. Nothing more. It's like asking what kind of RAM to get for a certain Mac.
Puppets, disengage. I'm asking for technical knowledge and I know you have none of that to offer.
Jesus Harold Christ you hens need some medication.
Originally posted by groverat With your vast knowledge, giant, please explain to me how exactly Rumsfeld is legally granted the ability to give orders. The article describes him as a civilian.
He's the head of the defense department, that does not mean that he can give direct orders that must be obeyed. Think real hard now, what is Rumsfeld's rank?
You think it requires 'vast knowledge' to know what the secretary of defence does?!?! According to this, kids are taght about the various cabinet positions in the THIRD GRADE!
Originally posted by giant
You think it requires 'vast knowledge' to know what the secretary of defence does?!?! According to this, kids are taght about the various cabinet positions in the THIRD GRADE!
And yet you still do not answer the question.
Originally posted by groverat
I'm asking for the power structure of the US goverment with regard to that specific branch and setup. Nothing more. It's like asking what kind of RAM to get for a certain Mac.
You're asking about the chain of command and the National Command Authority:
Here's a relevant bit of info from a military site (public domain). The link is below.
World War II and its aftermath furnished the impetus for unification of the Military Departments under a single cabinet-level secretary. Anticipating the needs of a peacetime military organization, an in-depth review by congressional, executive, and mili tary groups began even before the end of the war. The studies were influenced by Service interests that reflected the opinions of experienced wartime military and civilian leaders with vastly different views of the postwar future. Issues that dominated the search for a consensus included retention of air power in the Navy, maintenance of a separate Marine Corps, and the form and responsibilities of the new Department of the Air Force.
The National Security Act of 1947 was monumental legislation. After almost 50 years that included overseas wartime experience beginning with the Spanish-American War, a modern military organization came into existence. Unification of the Services und er a single department was law and the powers of the Secretary of National Defense were identified but subject to broad interpretation. The roles and missions of the military Services were defined by Executive Order but would not be statutorily defined u ntil 1958. The act created the NME under the leadership of a civilian secretary and created secretaries for the new Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
In 1949, the National Security Act was amended to change the name of the NME to the Department of Defense and to recognize it as an executive department. Further, it changed the role of the Services to Military Departments within DOD. The DOD Reorgani zation Act of 1958 strengthened the Secretary of Defense's direction, authority, and control over the department and clarified the operational chain of command from the President and Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders.
The role of the Secretary of Defense has changed since the position was established in 1947. Originally, the Secretary had only general authority over the NME, an authority shared with the civilian secretaries of the Military Departments. In 1949, his position was strengthened with his appointment as head of an executive department, reduction of the role of Military Department heads, and his assumption of budgeting responsibilities. Today, he is the principal assistant to the President for all matters relating to the Department of Defense. He has nearly plenary authority, direction, and control of the entire department. Moreover, the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 makes clear his position in the operational chain of command.
http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/overview.html
In other words, he be the number two dog in the military chain of command. He speaks for the president and NCA (national command authority) is vested in the two. So, yeah, he has actual power and can give orders, just like the president can.
That said, this whole thread is otherwise fallacious. Nobody is "turning on" Rumsfeld, except perhaps a few skipped-over Pentagon weasels who decline to use their names and have a knack for saying "I told you so" when nothing's even happened to warrant THAT exclamation (outside of the media, that is).
Originally posted by NoahJ
And yet you still do not answer the question.
I don't have to teach you how to "Read three- and four-digit numbers" (from the 3rd-grade curriculum page), so why should anyone here have to explain to you what a secretary of defense is?
Furthermore, how do any of you think you have even close to the understanding required to make policy judgements if you don't know basic government structure taught in THIRD GRADE?!?!
Thanks for the info, finboy.
Specifically, in case of nuclear attack or state of emergency, there are provisional plans for the evacuation of politicians at varying levels of government with priority and precedence depending on the "equivalent rank".
Not sure how the breakdown works in the State/Federal levels, and often such plans are not public knowledge, but I have previously met Cabinet Members and Senior Civil Servants who revealed an "equivalent rank" of Colonel or above.
That's not the same as them having real authority or the respect of serving military officers willing to follow their "orders".
Rumsfeld holds power at the discretion of the President, but he's also in the official chain of seccession in case Bush, Cheney, Daschle, Powell, etc all die off.
peter principle in action perhaps?
Originally posted by groverat
Would've been easier to answer it outright, but I have a feeling you got caught up in your own bile.
Thanks for the info, finboy.
Why not thank superkarate monkeydeathcar? He posted your answer about 15 posts ago. I'd say ask your third grade teacher, but obviously he/she didn't do a very good job.
Originally posted by giant
I don't have to teach you how to "Read three- and four-digit numbers" (from the 3rd-grade curriculum page), so why should anyone here have to explain to you what a secretary of defense is?
Furthermore, how do any of you think you have even close to the understanding required to make policy judgements if you don't know basic government structure taught in THIRD GRADE?!?!
Yeah, and everybody remembers all that they learned in third, fourth fifth, sixth, seventh, eigth and so on grade...Right?
Just because something is taught, time has a tendancy to erase some of what was learned unless one takes more time to reinforce said knowledge it has a tendancy to be repalced by more relevant knowledge, like say, how to reload windows 2000 server or what are the real specs of the PPC 970. Or maybe even more important stuff like, what is my wifes birthdate and when is my anniversary? Or perhaps how do i get from my house to work, or where are the best hamburgers sold in Portland? Other than that, an occasional question on military chain of command might come up like what, 4 times in your whole life if you are not in the military.
Your point was not one. And a simple answer would have been much preferred to your childish rant. Petty, to say the least.