Bloodless Coup

I'll agree with Bacevich's comments in general, but I wonder if he is railing against the system, or the people in the system.

In other words, is this a systemic problem (all JCS Chairs are bound to suck because of the position), or a problem of politics. I think it is politics: as with most everything, if Congress fails to do the right thing and actually force the Executive to adhere to the law, you get bad people (and, bad policy). It's no surprise that the President wouldn't want a strong Chair of JCS (a position that can hurt the President), but it's up to Congress to see that the "right" person is appointed. Most modern Congresses have failed on this point.

I'd love to read a history of Congress from the 1960s, back when most people said Congress was "strong" and the President "weak". Given how shitty Congress has been recently, I'd love to see a "strong" Congress and what problems that created.

Well I take it to mean that with the system, you aren't going to have effective people in power fulfilling the spirit of the law. And sure, part of that is due to the political nature of the job.

I think there's something to that (though for whatever it's worth I thought Gen. Shalikashvili seemed a reasonably competent JCS chief, though that was a decade ago), and think this is any interesting thought.

And if you are looking for a really influential Congress (not counting post-Watergate), I'd think you'd need to go back to the 1950's maybe. And I'm a HUGE fan of Master of the Senate for a look at that era.