Ranting Kossacks

Over at the Daily Kos, someone is fuming over Bush wanting US leadership of UN forces. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. Leadership of UN forces is always under different nations. Bush’s argument that ”its our turn” isn’t that far out of line, on that score. And, honestly, to extrapolate the various events the author mentions isn’t that far out of line either. To claim them as de facto events if Bush gets US leadership of UN forces? That’s a bit much. Personally, given the problems NATO is having in Afghanistan, and our troops having experience there, my thought is US leadership might be a good thing.

But, what the writer describes is not the way the military is supposed to work—although it was the way Johnson and Nixon handled Vietnam. And, for some reason, it is a belief that persists even today. Nothing happened, down to the tactical level, without White House knowledge and approval. It was a micro-managing nightmare. The way it is supposed to work is this: the White House (i.e. the commander-in-chief) sets the goals. The generals decide the best way to accomplish those goals. And, the soldiers obey the orders of the generals.

That works somewhat differently in the UN setting. The generals are not supposed to their home country, but to UN leaders. As far as I know, every prior general of UN forces has let their own country’s politics and agenda affect how he leads UN troops to some degree. And, I’m sure it will happen under US leadership. But, the President does not command those troops, if they are under the authority of the UN. So, the premise the writer uses is faulty from the start.

Personally, I do not agree that US troops should ever be under the authority of the UN. They are US soldiers—not UN soldiers. So, I actually don’t agree with the original premise of the idea. But, if it is going to happen, the US should get it’s turn at being in command of those soldiers on the ground.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos is blaming Bush for everything about the Iraqi nuke documents being released on the internet. Kind of silly really. This rants on and on about how Bush failed us in national security because he authorized the posting of the info. But, since action was taken immediately to bring down the site and end the problem, all I see is an informational screw up. Technically, and in fact, the guy who actually put the information on the net is the one at fault. Bush, or whoever he had appointed, did his job. So, I don’t get it. Democrats have been doing this type of thing as long as Republicans. How come it’s only Republicans who are such nasty awful failures, and such threats to national security?