![]() Reagan gives every appearance of taking seriously his obligations as Commander in Chief. Several times, the Commander in Chief has weighed but disregarded their advice to be cautious about deploying American forces unless there are clear-cut objectives, sufficient numbers and public support.Ĭertainly, Mr. Moreover, he has shown himself to be bolder than his generals, with whom he confers more often than any other President in recent memory. President Reagan, however, represents a return to a reliance on military power to achieve political objectives. Presidents Ford and Carter generally followed that lead. In recent years, President Nixon represented a turning point as, having ordered the invasion of Cambodia and resumed the bombing of North Vietnam, he then extracted the United States from Vietnam and refrained from employing military force thereafter. In those years, President Eisenhower, the retired general, was the most restrained in the use of military force. Reagan in a league with President Truman, who sent forces to fight in Korea, and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, who led the United States into the war in Vietnam. Reagan has dispatched marines and warships to Lebanon, mounted an aerial and naval show of force against Libya, sent warships and combat soldiers to Central America and ordered the invasion of Grenada. ![]() In his constitutional post as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Mr. By Richard Halloran VER THE LAST 18 months, President Reagan has clearly stepped into the front ranks of those American Presidents who, since World War II, have been willing to employ military force as an instrument of national policy. Richard Halloran, a member of The Times's Washington bureau, covers military affairs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |