Is this proper?
These 2 sections of the story seem to contradict each other, although there is probably a loophole that allows them to do this.
"federal regulations bar advisory committee members from engaging in political activity while performing their committee duties"
"Galanti coordinated Arizona Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in Virginia four years ago and was a member of the same VA advisory panel when Bush’s father was president."
Since I have never been associated with the Navy, I am unfamiliar with Navytimes. Is it a publication? What type of political bent (Liberal, Moderate, Conservative) does it normally take?
Thanks for answering.
If it was a govt website it would have a top level domain of .mil or .gov
This site has a top level domain of .com.
It is a FOR profit website.
I understand that. But some .com sites have deep affiliations with organizations whose membership they hope to serve. So, my basic question of what type of organization Navytimes is (other than for profit or informational) still is pertinent.
~Obviously ... as the name somewhat eludes to... it is a pro-military organization~ Hopefully my statement is in line with their intent.
But I personally have found that most of the information that they present is a good starting point of reference to statements regarding the Navy. It seems presented with an angel promoting the positive spin on Naval behavior. (*I personal don't have a problem with that but some might*) The facts are correct and the added padding doesn't offend me so I usually take their articles at face value and research anything that I feel is worth my attention through different angled avenues.
After witnessing first hand the impact on American lives from the unrest in the Middle East for the past two weeks I am drawn to sources with a positive angel towards our military. Just my 2 cents... Candace
It is a Gannett publication. It is part of the Military Times family which includes the Navy Times, Army Times, Marine Times, and Air Force Times.
.....But in regards to the reference to Fed Regulations: While serving on Advisory panels, I think many have "tip-toed" around political activity.
To be associated with the military and not have strong political opinions seems to be a contradiction in itself. ***I would personally be concerned about any Military member who makes decisions at any level, that doesn't personally become involved with political issues*** But that is just my personal opinion.
To actively engage in political activity.... I think, is the fine line that many senior military members face at some point in time. I am personally glad they attempt to have an influence in political matters, but then again many probably disagree with me there. It is just my personal opinion.
I also agree that Federal regulations are in place to keep the Armed forces under some type of restraint in regards to influencing policy. However, I still think there is a need for the input and influence military members, and retired military members, offer to many of the decisions made.
Thanks for indulging my attempt to add my two cents... kisses Candace
I have a military background, came in as a Lt. and left as a Col. I just threw that out for a point in reference as to my next statement. Many senior officers will have a political bent one way or another but they can not afford to align themselves too heavily with politics. Regardless of who is in the Whitehouse, Rep. or Dem., that is still the commander in chief and a soldier carries out just orders without question. Notice I said just orders.
Now if you get too political, you start to really question commands based on how you feel left or right of the fence and when you start to do that men under your command get hurt or worse die. I truly feel that active military can and should advise on tactical and strategic situations, and policy of national security and that should be the extent of their involvement in politics. A soldier’s job is to save lives and politics can cloud your judgment instead of sharpening your reactions.
If I thought about the political reasons why certain orders came down, I could not have ordered troops to fight in Panama. What was the purpose of that, we told the public we where tracking down a leader of a country who trafficked drugs to the US. The politics behind that is the Bush when he was with the CIA help put and keep Noriega in power. We attacked and damn near destroyed a country to arrest their chosen leader. Can you imagine Canada attacking the US to arrest our President because they don't like something he did? Boy that is ballsy, but that is what we did in Panama. Now you would have thought such a thing would have generated the trail of the century. Nothing to little on the news. It all just went away and Mr. Drug Dealer President is in a country club in Virginia. Yet I had to explain to mothers or marines why their son had to die.
In my humble opinion that whole deal was just an excuse to try the stealth fighters in combat situation. To my knowledge that was the first time they were used. Oh, by the way, Panama had little to no air defense anyway so how much of a test was it and was it truly needed for the campaign. I think not. As an officer I had a duty to do, but if I got political about it, I would have paused and said WTF are we doing here? A solider doesn't have that luxury.
Don't get me started about desert storm. We went to liberate one dictatorship from another dictatorship, under the guise of liberation, while the real reason was to shield another dictatorship, the Saudi's and protect their oil from Iraq. Theses three countries are so far removed from our model of democracy yet American's had to loose lives for what? Oil. But we had a job to do. Too bad Washington didn't let us finish it.
And then when we do get a job to do, you get some politicians like Bill Clinton who doesn't have the stomach to finish the job either. Somalia, Ethiopia, Haiti etc. Places we sent US troops to do a mission, yet when the mission gets bloody, we turn and run, or don't commit all the tools we have available because it would be seen by the world as too aggressive? Yes that was the military under Bill.
The military is and should be a tool of diplomacy. Soldiers don't want to fight but will do their duty if asked. Ours is and will always be the profession of peace even if some don't see it that way. Unfortunately too many politicians don't understand the real role and importance of the military and try to manipulate it for career goal. Any officer who gets too political should retire from active duty because his judgment is compromised and when that happens, soldiers die.
-- Modified on 9/4/2004 10:07:56 PM
~I had never understood the political stance from a member of the military~....
Your statements are acknowledged and appreciated. Your post lead me to question a few 'friends' who are currently serving. Like you the opinion seemed to be the same. To get involved with matters politically seems to distort the ability to carry out orders without questioning them. I guess I just have to respect the statements made and the additional comments that I received following your post. I apologize if my ignorance of the job you guys do was further compounded by my statement of being concerned about any military member who doesn't have a political opinion. I suppose having one verses acting upon it would be what separates soldiers and military personnel from ordinary citizens. Thank you for adding your insight. kisses Candace
-- Modified on 9/4/2004 10:36:04 PM
chuckd_pe, I read your position on our military actions over the past 20-30 years. I agree with you, but had never researched our military activities in the various countries.
It is truly sad that so many of our troops, male and female, had to lose their lives in order for some politician(s) to look good!! Our nation is greatful for the dedicated service of those in the service.