3 ms·

This is silly. Presidents routinely fire generals, even during military conflicts. The CIA and the NSA are under his direct perview. Buck stops with POTUS on th

• jfmiller28 13y ago
  Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations. A new general may attack today instead of tomorrow, but it will be the mid-ranking officers who determine what set of rape pillage and plunder happen in the aftermath. It is the same with the CIA. The director may set targets and direct stratagity but it is the untouchable civil servants who run the show. Given the Hall of Mirrors effect, I think it could be possible that the appointed leaders are mere figure-heads just there to take the blame what a job goes bad.
  • 001sky 13y ago
    "Generals are easy to fire and rarely have direct effect on the day to day operations" The second half of this sentence doesn't ring true. The last two major generals Obama fired were McChrystal and Patraeus. Both hugely influential in structuring day to day operations, if not direct tactical decision. The latter was the author of http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2.pdf http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_24x2..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus