- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Am I the only one to see this, but doesn't the argument that political officeholders, who are there, incidentally, to represent the will of the people, should have no say in determining the military actions of the US logically end with the proposition that civilian leadership of the military is illegitimate? Isn't it fundamentally an argument for military dictatorship? As an American and a patriot, I find that a most troubling and indeed appalling proposition. Either there is civilian leadership or there is not. For that matter, Bush has been making military decisions that are contrary to the recommendations of the military leadership. How is that okay, but Congress making its views, that have the weight of the popular will via the last election, known not?
