main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Who should control our military?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Espaldapalabras, Jun 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Civilians or Military?

    What do we do about an all volunteer military that doesn't see leaders with no military experience as legitimate?

    Link

    One interesting thing my recently returned Marine friends mentioned about Obama was they didn't think you could be a good Commander-in-Chief without fighting experience, and so when I read this today, I don't think it is an uncommon view held by our fighting men.
     
  2. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Civilians must control our military. Period. Cut and dry. Not really worth debating in my mind.

    I don't think it is an uncommon view held by our fighting men.

    I would like to know how they explain how our two most effective commanding presidents, Lincoln and FDR, managed to brilliantly execute their respective wars to successful ends without an iota of fighting experience. You don't need fighting experience, or any time in the military. You need to be smart, level-headed, open-minded yet decisive, among other things. Lincoln and FDR put the lie to anyone who says that you can't be an effective commander-in-chief without serving in the military.
     
  3. DarthBoba

    DarthBoba Manager Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Civilian control is key to our country; that's really all there is to it.
     
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I guess it depends on what is meant by "control."

    The military should never dictate policy. That falls to the elected civilian representatives, President, etc... Since military action is simply an extension of foreign policy, this should never change.

    If by control, one means "micro-manage," I think this swings too far in the other direction. Actual tactical control should always rest with the actual military officers, if for no other reason that to avoid "conflict by committee syndrome."

    I'd say that our current system is just fine, and represents a fine balance.
     
  5. Raven

    Raven Administrator Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 5, 1998
    Policy dictates tactics. If, for example, policy is that if there's a reasonable chance civilians might be hurt by an assault, then the assault should be called off, regardless of potential tactical and strategic gain, then civilian policy has determined what tactics are available to the military.
     
  6. anidanami124

    anidanami124 Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2002
    They had good Generals who knew what to do and how to do it. I'm sorry but FDR and Lincoln were not the ones breaking out ever order. What they did was put good men who knew how to command the troops in battle and knew how to come up with battle planes.
     
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Policy dictates tactics. If, for example, policy is that if there's a reasonable chance civilians might be hurt by an assault, then the assault should be called off, regardless of potential tactical and strategic gain, then civilian policy has determined what tactics are available to the military.

    And I would almost completely disagree. Well, I would agree with your first statement, but your post is the perfect example of mixing the two ideas, and/or the "conflict by committee" that I mentioned.

    If the political goal, for example, is to assault Iwo Jima and eliminate the enemy troops there, then an effective civilian leader should allow the military commanders the initiative to carry it out. There's a bond of trust between different operating spheres. That's why the US has the UCMJ (and equivalent for other countries) and the laws of land warfare.

    Because the worst thing that can happen from the standpoint of both is for a policy order to be issued: "Take that Hill!" But then have all sorts of hand-holding restrictions follow on: "Take that Hill, boys...but then don't fire weapons past 48 degrees to your right, and don't use support by automatic fire, and oh, yeah, don't used grenades or rockets..." The military operation probably isn't going to be successful, and as a result neither is the policy goal. If the political goal can't stomach the military one, then it probably shouldn't be carried out in the first place.

     
  8. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    That implies that every President will be involved in some sort of conflict during his/her term in office.

    Besides, doesn't the President have a whole bunch of generals and other military dudes in the Pentagon to advise him on the correct strategy? Even if the President were a military person, they would still take up the advice of those people would they not?
     
  9. DarthBoba

    DarthBoba Manager Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 29, 2000
    That's the way it's supposed to work, yes.


    And honestly, dissing the National Security Advisor...give me a break. Gates completely overshadows that man to the point where he's only news when someone makes fun of him. :p
     
  10. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    I'd be interested to know if these guys think John Kerry would have made a better commander-in-chief than W.
     
  11. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    How does a military not controlled by civilians even work anyhow? If a military is supposed to protect its country then what kind of philosophy allows for the situation where the military operates independent of the government, or in some cases runs the country?
     
  12. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    I've stopped trying to debate politics with my friends. Among them, I'm the crazy liberal. And so it was something like 8 against 1 so I didn't probe them on what they thought of Kerry. Also did I mention these are trained killers just returned from a warzone? I wasn't about to go there. :p
     
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    How does a military not controlled by civilians even work anyhow?

    I know this is purely hypothetical, but one of the most prominent scenarios is to have an organization that mirrors the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which would be elevated to a "pillar level" branch of government. In other words, the President is removed from being the Commander in Chief:

    1)Executive branch-President
    2)Legislative branch-Congress
    3)Judicial branch-Supreme Court
    4)Defense branch-Joint Chiefs of Staff

    It would mean that all military decisions would be made by the military, but under the existing system of checks and balances, the Executive still makes treaties and Congress still declares war, and confirms appointments, etc... The benefits would be that a lot of the politics of war fighting would be removed, similar to how political concerns are minimized in the Supreme Court. The negative also comes from the positive, in that all political concerns are removed. So if MacArthur wanted to drop the bomb on Korea, there would be no Truman to stop him.

    Under this system, I'd imagine that the Top Officer in the Joint Chiefs would come to rival the President. Imagine if Colin Powell was in charge when Bush was President, or Petraeus during Obama...
     
  14. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I am not a fan of the executive branch's ability in practice to wage war without Congressional approval. If the president can count on popular support, s/he can start a war and then more or less dare Congress to refuse to ratify it.

    I would look for a compromise that would diminish the executive branch's capacity to wage war on its own without actually carving the military out of the executive entirely and pouring it into its own branch of government.
     
  15. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Who should control our military?

    ME!
     
  16. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    The military running the country is not unheard of in modern history. Not just marginally functional states, but major countries like Greece and Argentina. That isn't an endorsement.

    There is a certain mindset that says we need to elect veterans over non-veterans. I sympathize with that view in part because veterans have been ignominiously defeated for five straight presidential elections, which is just sad.

    I think pretty much everyone agrees that once the president's won, that's that and the military needs to obey him, whether they like him or not. Civilian control of the military is paramount in our country, and there is recognition of that fact.

    For a lot of the "We Must Elect Veterans" crowd, Kerry effectively nullified the honor his service earned him, by badmouthing it in front of Congress, throwing away his medals, etc. That said, there were some people who supported Kerry in part because of his war hero status, including myself.

     
  17. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Not if the guy who won was a better candidate, it's not.

    And it seems to me that as far as preparation for the role of commander-in-chief is concerned, the only veterans who have an advantage over civilians are those who have reached command-level ranks.

    I think Gore should have won in 2000, but not because he was an Army journalist.
     
  18. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    That is not completely accurate.

    George W. Bush was a veteran of the Texas Air National Guard. I know people like to point to the controversies associated with his service, but the fact is that he was honorably discharged from the armed forces, which makes him a veteran. As such, the 2000 and 2004 elections were won by a veteran. Both elections were between two veterans, and so cannot be used to make a point about an election between a veteran and a non-veteran.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  19. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    This would lead to a military dictatorship, Mr44. You cannot have an autonomous military under the American system of government; chaos would ensue. Who would decide when a conflict arose between the civilian President and the military CIC? Could the military simply decide that a battle is in the best interests of the US without waiting for the Congress/Executive branch to decide and begin an attack, disguising it under the language of a "police action"?

    A dangerous precedent, if you ask me. The lack of respect that the military sometimes has for the CIC (and it seems to be more of a problem with Democratic presidents than Republican ones, which is cultural, IMHO) is detrimental to our republic and can only lead to disaster.

    To take your example: if Truman had been unable to overrule MacArthur, we would have had a nuclear war. Truman's decision was based on international politics, something which the military is not qualified to make decisions based on. That's part of what the civilian government is for.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  20. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Well if it's a battle between veterans, I have to say that patrolling the rivers and swamps of Vietnam and facing Vietcong ambushes sounds a hell of a lot more impressive than flying around stateside in an F-104 waiting for Soviet bombers that in all likelihood aren't going ever to come :p
     
  21. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    As Vaderize pointed, in Mr44's model, there is no check/balance on the defense branch. If you equate the level of power to the senior DefBranch official to the senior ExecBranch official, you would effectively remove the current checks placed upon military action by both Leg- and ExecBranches. If Congress no longer decides when to/not to go to war, and the President no longer decides when military force is needed, then you have effectively palsied the civilian government and weakened the security of the nation. The DefBranch would have the ultimate power, and (as history has shown us time and again) would likely control civilian policy either by military coup, threat of military coup, or threat of withdrawn cooperation with the other branches.

    The only way for it to work is to have a military government, which means no more American democracy.
     
  22. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    There are some who would welcome that...

    *cough* Dick Cheney *cough*

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    V, you're looking at the wrong area of checks and balances. All of your concerns currently exist.

    What happens now with the executive initiates military action, and Congress then has to vote to continue or discontinue it? It's the President who controls nuclear use authorization. It's the President who makes appointment recommendations. It's Congress who controls the budget and confirms appointments. Under the 4th pillar, just substitute "Commander and the Joint Chiefs" for "President" in the realm of military decisions and Veterans affairs. The military would simply control defense decisions, nothing else would change with regards to checks and balances or current practice. It wouldn't mean that the military would assume control of all other branches of government.

    It's just an interesting hypothetical example.
     
  24. Darth_Fred

    Darth_Fred Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2004
    I favor civilian control. I do wish it was more enlightened than has been the case most of the time.

    Mr44, with your pillar model, what is the apparatus for deciding who is the ranking military figure? I would guess that it isn't open voting, as that would introduce politics to the system. Is it internal voting? Rotating duty for senior military staff?

    I would still favor a three pillar system with a civilian president and secretary of defense controlling the military. At the least, the individual in office could be removed and replaced with a (hopefully) better fit if the situation required it. Without an election, it could turn into an oligarchy of military control deciding when the most extreme measures were required.
     
  25. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    It's the same as it is now, where the President nominates a flag officer from one of the services. Congress then approves the appointment. It's no different than how the President nominates the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and then once confirmed, the SC justices sit on their own "pillar" of government. Each branch still has their own areas of responsibility.

    This isn't my creation. I'm thinking of a hypothetical that was generated back when Clinton was President, because the military generally didn't have the best relationship with Clinton and vice versa. Maybe it was an essay from the Heritage Foundation, I don't really recall, so I'm quite possibly missing a detail here or there.

    In actuality, while not as far-reaching, there is still legitimate talk of making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a permanent 5 Star General rank. If this happens, then that position would become pretty much on par with the President in military matters anyway.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.