Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen: National Debt is the single biggest threat to national security

[Fergasun]

The problem is, if you were a member of the military and JCS, you may be concerned once we hit $1T or $2T. Additionally, anyone who is critical of our national debt is clearly pointing the finger at Congress (who controls the purse), and the President. That's not the job of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So let's say we do consider the "debt" a "national security" problem. Does that mean the President can enact a line-item-veto, even though it has been declared un-Constitutional? There are all sorts of implications of linking the debt to "national security" that are bad.

As I stated originally, no one has ever gotten hurt physically as a result of debt (it is speculative and derivative harm).

[twa]

As I stated originally, no one has ever gotten hurt physically as a result of debt (it is speculative and derivative harm).

WWII begs to differ imo

[Redskins Diehard]

So, in your opinion, his job is any "threat to the nation"?

(And yet, every single example I gave was "ridiculous". Curious.)

Could you point me at his advice on what the nation should do about illegal immigration? The housing crisis? The Gulf oil spill?

How about the Capital Gains tax? The increasing politicization of the Justice Department? Declining birth rates?

How about this: Could you tell me, in your opinion, what isn't his job to offer his opinion on?

Larry, his job, as member of the National Security Council is to understand any threats that the National Security Council deals with. If he is asked what he views as the "greatest threat" then he can only give one answer. And he should give the answer. There is a reason why the Sec of the Treasury is on the NSC. There is a reason why there is an economic policy adviser on the NSC. There is a reason the director of OMB is on the NSC.

There is plenty of stuff he shouldn't give his opinion on in an official capacity. No way I could offer an all inclusive list. Related to this particular topic it would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to offer policy "solutions" to the debt problem.

And again, I do not think all of the examples you gave were ridiculous. I apologize for giving that impression.

[Redskins Diehard]

You said:You extended the firing comment to cover the other examples Larry gave. Are you having trouble comprehending your own words?
I vouched for my friend's work because he's a stand-up guy. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (not for this report), so he's no slouch. I admire him greatly.

For the record, I would find it odd if the Joint Chiefs chair made public pronouncements about global warming also.

I typed words that apparently were not well understood. It is not what I meant. I have since clarified.

You would find it odd but would you find it inappropriate? Or unacceptable?

I don't know that I agree that the national debt is the "greatest threat facing our country". But I absolutely feel that it is appropriate for any member of the NSC to discuss threats to the country. Tim Geithner is perfectly justified in my opinion to say that a nuclear Iran is a threat to national security. Eric Holder is perfectly within his rights in saying a military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula is a threat to our national security.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[JimboDaMan]

Just to help ya understand why, there is a much nearer term effect from the debt....as well as a clearer path to addressing it.

Gonna be some hard cuts coming

Just to help ya understand why, the debt is an infinitesimaly trivial problem compared to the planet's climate acually chnaging. You can change the debt simply by deciding to make it so.

[twa]

Just to help ya understand why, the debt is an infinitesimaly trivial problem compared to the planet's climate acually chnaging. You can change the debt simply by deciding to make it so.

Is the General gonna be more focused on the next ten yrs or 100?

Are you certain man can change climate change for the better?

[Thiebear]

The National Debt is an American crippling problem, it bothers me that Congress doesn't seem to take it seriously and continues to argue as if it were the Clinton booming years.

To fix Global warming you have to get Inida, China, Russia to buy into not expanding their empires... (unpossible).

[JimboDaMan]

Whether or not man can change global warming is almost irrelevant, the issue is whether its a threat and what the US should do in response. And, with an eye towards the OP, whether it would be appropriate for the CJCS to speak out about it. He could discuss reduction of greenhouse gasses and such, or if its been judged impossible for man to change he might instead talk about evacuating lowlying areas, food chain issues to avoid famine, etc. Is that his job?

[Stillers6SB]

Whether or not man can change global warming is almost irrelevant, the issue is whether its a threat and what the US should do in response. And, with an eye towards the OP, whether it would be appropriate for the CJCS to speak out about it. He could discuss reduction of greenhouse gasses and such, or if its been judged impossible for man to change he might instead talk about evacuating lowlying areas, food chain issues to avoid famine, etc. Is that his job?

Based on the law, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/153.html,
none of these issues are any part of his job description. His job is generally National Military Strategy, not economics, global warming, gay marriage, etc.

He should stick to doing his job, not Geithner's or the rest of the economic team.

[Redskins Diehard]

Based on the law, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/153.html,
none of these issues are any part of his job description. His job is generally National Military Strategy, not economics, global warming, gay marriage, etc.

He should stick to doing his job, not Geithner's or the rest of the economic team.

National Security Threats are his job.(of course the whole notion of global warming and gay marriage were introduced by posters in this thread and not actually discussed by the CJCS).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/

National Security Council

The National Security Council (NSC) is the President's principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council's function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947 (PL 235 - 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the Executive Office of the President.

[TheGreatBuzz]

So, if he says that the greatest threat to national security is, say, gay marriage, then that makes it part of his job description to be formulating the national policy on gay marriage?

How about if he says it's global warming? Trade with China? Income concentration? People who don't have health care? The anti-science agenda in our public schools? The Dallas Cowboys?

http://www.missionreadiness.org/

In this link, you find where 2 former CJCS address child obesity and it's possible effects on national security. Now while they didn't do it while in office, they seem to have a good grasp on it. Because it is there job to understand all national security issues. If the CJCS is out campaining for a canidate because he wants to cut the deficiet, that is over the line. But coming out and saying there is an issue is the right thing to do. Then he steps back and lets the other people fix it (assuming they even bother to try).

Based on the law, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/153.html,
none of these issues are any part of his job description. His job is generally National Military Strategy, not economics, global warming, gay marriage, etc.

He should stick to doing his job, not Geithner's or the rest of the economic team.

Anything that effects his job, and ability to do it, including fat kids and weither or not he will have money in the future to buy what he needs IS his job. He shouldn't be taking sides on who will fix it but is completely his job to say what the problem is.

[twa]

Anything that effects his job, and ability to do it, including fat kids and weither or not he will have money in the future to buy what he needs IS his job. He shouldn't be taking sides on who will fix it but is completely his job to say what the problem is.

This is certainly true,as is the distinction on taking sides.

Even gay marriage effects must be considered if we are doing away with DADT

I don't really see why his comment is a big issue,Obama and Geither already know it...as well as most people that pay attention.
Economics and defense preparations/mission objectives go hand in hand

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't really see why his comment is a big issue,Obama and Geither already know it...as well as most people that pay attention.
Economics and defense preparations/mission objectives go hand in hand

The comment that appeared in the article appeared to be about as apolitical as it can be. A person that is interested in partisanship can take it and point fingers at the other side to their heart's content. They could blame it on stimulus. They could blame it on the war. They could blame it on health care. They could blame it on tax breaks for the rich. They could even blame it on a President that has been out of office for 22 years if they wanted to.

[Stillers6SB]

The comment that appeared in the article appeared to be about as apolitical as it can be. A person that is interested in partisanship can take it and point fingers at the other side to their heart's content. They could blame it on stimulus. They could blame it on the war. They could blame it on health care. They could blame it on tax breaks for the rich. They could even blame it on a President that has been out of office for 22 years if they wanted to.

He comment could be considered apolitical if it occurred in a vacuum. But the debt discussion is not apolitical at all. Here's one comment on the website where the Admiral's comment appears:

Two encouraging developments here. First is the General speaking up and pointing out the obvious, and second, the number of posters that are in agreement with the military stopping this intentional destruction of our country. A side benefit is the frothing-mouth fit this produces in leftist loons posting here. The left under comrade Hussein is not finished with their destruction of our military, to the contrary, there is much more to be done. Mullen will be taken to the woodshed over his remarks, but there are many patriotic officers that are all too aware that Hitler could have been stopped before he destroyed Germany. And yes, comrade Hussein is aptly compared to Hitler, as the Nazis were socialists, just as Hussein and his thugs are marxists, a more virulent form of socialism, but certainly soul mates. Civil strife is in the Hussein playbook, taken straight from Saul Alinsky’s Handbook for Radicals. The military can prevent the planned breakdown of law and order and stop the ongoing deliberate destruction of our nation and its culture by the muslim and marxist comrade Hussein.