LibriumArcana.Games

This... this is too blatantly stupid for me to be able to mark this up as "huh huh, talking head on TV is dumb." It makes me wonder what's at stake by pushing the claim that the military is autonomous from the elected government.

rawstory.com wrote:Somehow in the mind of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, the United States military is not controlled by its government.

In a discussion on government involvement on health care Tuesday evening, The O’Reilly Factor suddenly had an interesting and peculiar back and forth with Alan Colmes on the government’s overall effectiveness.

“Can they run the military?” Colmes asked.

O’Reilly replied: “They can’t run the military because it’s military controlled, not civilian.”

“That’s government run, it’s still the government doing it,” Colmes countered.

“But the Pentagon calls the shots,” he said.

“But the commander-in-chief is a civilian, the government runs the military well,” Colmes insisted.

“That is wrong,” O’Reilly said. “The Pentagon calls the shots on how the military operates. The Pentagon is military people.”

“That’s the government,” Colmes said. “It’s the government, it’s still the government.”

O’Reilly concluded: “They work for and the government running it are two different things.”

Despite what O’Reilly insisted, the military is led by the executive branch, which appoints the Pentagon’s leadership. The military’s top generals serve as advisers to the president, a civilian, who has ultimate authority over the military.

See, it's easy to go "lulz he wuz dumb," but O'Reilly has to know better. Therefore, what's possible to be gained by claiming the military is separate from the rest of the US government?

Raising the hopes of a separatist revolution from his radical Right-Wing Militia followers?

Unlikely. More like trying to set up a ground work for the fact that they hate big government, but love big military. See with this they're no longer the same thing because now magically the military isn't part of the government!

I'm inevitably missing something obvious here so feel free to laugh at me but-when have the military ever been part of the government, as opposed to being controlled by it? Being part of the government, at least to me, means they can actually make government decisions, like enacting laws or raising taxes or something, and the US Armed Forces never ever could do that.

But as I said, I'm inevitably missing something obvious.

Batman wrote:I'm inevitably missing something obvious here so feel free to laugh at me but-when have the military ever been part of the government, as opposed to being controlled by it? Being part of the government, at least to me, means they can actually make government decisions, like enacting laws or raising taxes or something, and the US Armed Forces never ever could do that.

But as I said, I'm inevitably missing something obvious.

Bill O'Reilly here is arguing that the US Military is autonomous from the US Government, not that the US Military takes part in politics.

The US Military is part of the government. The idea that being part of the government means you take part in the decision making process is a new wrinkle to me. The vast majority of people in the government do no such thing, unless suddenly no one is in the government expect for Senators, Representative and the President (the Vice President for example would be left out, he is never part of the decision making process unless the Senate ties...). This makes the FBI, CIA, NSA, EPA and the SEC not part of the government. All they do after all is enforce government decisions. The State department? Doesn't make decisions, just carries them out. IRS? Just carries out decisions. The Military is surely part of the government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are uniformed men who directly advise the President. The Security of Defense speaks for (or often against) the military at the cabinet level. Military personal are considered government employees, if the government shuts down we don't get paid, if we join the post office, FBI or CIA (etc) our time in service counts towards retirement, benefits and raises. What else would we be, a traveling dance trope!?!

The Constitution speaks of the military as part of the government. An armed part that is utterly subservient to the civilian part (as it should be) but part non the less. While that doesn't mean anything when speaking of foreign nations, in the United States the Constitution is the final word on the matter.

I think it has to do with views of what "being the government" is. For O'Reilly and those with his thoughts, the "Government" is primarily seen as a regulatory body, out of control, that uses state power to interfere in the economic and even civil lives of the populace and which consumes tax money wastefully. The military is, however, seen as an institution of PATRIOTISM and DEFENDING AMERICA, so it can't be "bad" like the regulatory, interfering Government. Ergo, it's not the same.

And since, to my knowledge, the US military isn't involved in regulating the economic and social lives of Americans, that view holds some water if you subscribe to the "Government = Regulatory Body" mindset.