Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Gah, of course they are.  I always forget about the vice chairman.

Yes, the resignation of the Joint Chiefs would be more symbolic than operationally debilitating, which is another reason why it would be more appropriate than the resignations of the combatant commanders.  Because one of the key roles of the Chiefs is advisory, it would be a sign that the president and secretary of defense were pursing a military course of action against the advice of their top military advisors.  It's hard to coherently argue that you're doing what's militarily necessary when your top military advisors are publicly saying the opposite....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Feb 26th, 2007 at 05:30:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series