Civilian Command over Military Matters for a General, but not for Gays?

June 24th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Politics | Sex and Gender | War and Peace

Around Washington DC, there is bipartisan consensus that because “the military is subordinate to the civilian command,” President Barack Obama was right to fire General Stanley McChrystal for his insubordination. What keeps America from falling completely into the structure of a warlord nation is the strict rule that elected representatives set policy and the military is constrained to follow that policy.

Why is the consensus in some circles around Washington, DC that when it comes to the repeal or maintenance of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, “you ultimately have to listen to the military authorities”? I have the suspicion that in this case a substantive position generated the procedural stance.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>