From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:11:34 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
>	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
>president of the United States will have to call on young men and
>women in the military to fight and die. We all hope and pray that this
>does not happen, but only a reckless fool would refuse to consider it
>as a real possibility. It is entirely likely that the cause they are
>asked defend will be a questionable one. After all, Presidents and
>Congresses have been known to make mistakes.

So far, so good.

>	So, who do you want to be asking your children to march off to
>war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to
>go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man
>who flew off the aircraft carrier wondering if he would ever return? Do
>you want the man who meditated on his future political viability while
>in a comfy dorm room at Oxford?  Or do you want the man who was
>wondering about the value of war while floating in the Pacific Ocean
>after being shot down?  

GHWB has shown that he is willing to squander US lives and
fortune for dubious military adventures (Panama) and to 
support others (Granada, Lebanon) while he was VP.  I am
willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Clinton, on
the hopes that he might be able to choose areas for
US military action more wisely (I am slightly, but not
greatly, hopeful).

>	The President of the United States has to have the moral
>authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
>Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever know.
>If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
>die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
>SHOULD I?"

First, the military is voluntary:  presumably, those in
the military selected to be there.  Second, any soldier who
refused direct orders to go into combat would be in deep
trouble; the solider may have a "right" to wonder about
the motivation of the President, but not the "right"
to disobey orders.  Third, I don't remember any soldiers
during Desert Storm saying "Secretary of Defense Cheney
didn't go, why should I".  Fourth, Bill Clinton avoided
the draft using legal means; so did millions of other
young men (including me).

>Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have
>to be compleatly abandoned. While Gov. Clinton may be a fine
>administrator, a great speaker, and a good politician, he lacks the
>moral authority to be Commander in Chief. He can still be patriotic,
>he can still love his country, he can still serve in politics; but the
>moral authority to ask someone to die is purchased with actions, not
>with talk.

Go back through US history an notice how many Presidents have
no military experience.  Also, note the number of poor-to-bad
presidents with wonderful military experience.  The 
Constitution does not list military service as a requirement
for the Presidency; indeed, the Founding Fathers (tm) set
up the structure of the federal government to specifically
put the military under civilian control.

>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 

I would feel much better than knowing that I was dying
for a country in which Dan Quayl is one heartbeat
away from the presidency.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16398 alt.politics.bush:8840