File this one under "unclear on the concept." B5
is a fictional TV show that nonetheless tries to be as realistic as possible while still adhering to the rules of drama. Therefore, in things like ACtA
you get Sheridan in situations which no
military leader would be permitted to get into. (And why all this picking on the American President? Somebody want to name me a British Prime Minister who led troops from the front during any major wars?)
The fact is that in the age of rapid-firing weapons hardly any
senior military commanders run things "from the front." It isn't practical. The day when Napoleon or Wellington could actually stand on a hill and see
the battle taking place before them is long gone. I suggest reading British military historian John Kegan's book The Mask of Command
if you want to understand the changing role of military leadership. Grant "led" from the rear, for the most part, where he could direct operations. So did Eisenhower, Bradley and the British Imperial General Staff. Montgomery and Patton put themselves closer to the action, but were rarely in the lead
when their forces moved.
(Winston Churchill very much wanted
to go in with the first troops on D-Day, but his military advisors wisely stopped him. Of course, Winston always was
a bit of a romantic.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>How many of you know an american president present at world war 1, 2, vietnam, the korean conflict, any of the above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The American President for most of WWII was wheelchair bound, not exactly the most mobile person in the world. Nonetheless he travelled to Europe and Africa during the War, and the Soviet Union immediately afterwards. Eisenhower toured Korea. John Kennedy never went to Vietnam, but he sent his Attorney General (and brother) on a fact-finding mission there. I believe Lyndon Johnson also visited troops in Vietnam. What's your point?
"Commander in Chief" is not the military rank
of the President of the United States. The President is a civilian. The Constitution makes him Commander in Chief and requires that he appoint all officers as a way of establishing absolute civilian control over the military. (Abuses by military authorities were one of the major reasons the revolution happened in the first place. The Framers of the Constitution were very suspicious of standing armies, and with good reason.
The Constitution never anticipated the President personally taking the field at the head of an army, just controlling what that army did from behind the lines. (Although, as noted, James Madison did just that when the Federal City itself was invaded by British troops. Also George Washington, as President, led a detachment of troops at one point - during Shay's Rebellion if memory serves.)
So your nitpicks don't apply, and the essential point of my post, that the fact that Rangers
will be a new show, about new characters, not Babylon 6
or B5: The Next Generation
still seems to have escaped you.
Pat Tallman Division