• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

  • The President-Civilian Control

    Votes: 23 54.8%

  • The Joint Chiefs-The Military Professionals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The President, but the military should decide battlefield tactics.

    Votes: 19 45.2%
  • Total voters
    42
Redress said:
How do you figure that? He is at the top of the chain of command.
Click to expand...

How can the president, who has no physical presence on the battlefield, say what is, or isn't, the appropriate ROE for that particular theater of operations? An ROE that is beneficial to the mission and the troops, that is. The ROE goes hand-in-hand with the current combat tactics of that battlefield.

The president's job is to say, "this is what we wish to accomplish", and the theater commander's job to accomplish the CIC's wishes. It's not the president's job to tell the TC how to accomplish the mission. I think that's where most of you are getting confused.
 
apdst said:
How can the president, who has no physical presence on the battlefield, say what is, or isn't, the appropriate ROE for that particular theater of operations? An ROE that is beneficial to the mission and the troops, that is. The ROE goes hand-in-hand with the current combat tactics of that battlefield.

The president's job is to say, "this is what we wish to accomplish", and the theater commander's job to accomplish the CIC's wishes. It's not the president's job to tell the TC how to accomplish the mission. I think that's where most of you are getting confused.
Click to expand...

Every single person in the military is still obligated to follow the president's orders. No exceptions. There are things a president should and should not do with that authority, but it is not limited legally. Try and not follow the president's orders while in the military and see how it goes.
 
How can the president, who has no physical presence on the battlefield, say what is, or isn't, the appropriate ROE for that particular theater of operations? An ROE that is beneficial to the mission and the troops, that is. The ROE goes hand-in-hand with the current combat tactics of that battlefield.

The president's job is to say, "this is what we wish to accomplish", and the theater commander's job to accomplish the CIC's wishes. It's not the president's job to tell the TC how to accomplish the mission. I think that's where most of you are getting confused.
Click to expand...

I agree that the president has no business in telling a fire team what to do. However, if he wants to fly his helicopter into a combat zone and tell them where to point their SAW, they do have an obligation to obey his orders. The president has the authority to make any such order, even if it would be pointless and stupid.
 
FlanaganReport said:
I would be totally opposed to that. Most of the issues that come up the public has no clue about.
Click to expand...

The same can be said when electing a President. Yet that is still left up to the general public.

But in anycase it doesn't matter. This country is The Peoples country. Not the Presidents country. Weather they have a "clue" about a particular subject makes no difference. They still have an opinion about it.

When it comes to having the President listening to the People I am talking about things like abortion, gay marriage, health care reform, etc etc. That is when the President should listen to the People and do what they want.

FlanaganReport said:
Let us take missile defense for example, do we really want the general public voting on an issue that 90% of people could not even generally explain how it functioned?
Click to expand...

Missile defense is a military tactic, because of this the President does have ultimate control. My earlier assertion has been that there is no civilian control on military matters. Period. I was responding to all the other posts that state that civilians have control. They don't. And in military matters I don't think that they should. EXCEPT when it comes to going into or getting out of a war. That should be left to the People. Since more often than not it is the People that fight that war through volunteer civilians.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Can you tell anyone in the military what to do?
Click to expand...

Devil505 said:
Missed this b4. If you are asking if a President can do that, the answer is yes. The President is CinC & any lawful order he gives must be carried out or you can be court-martialed for disobedience.
Click to expand...

No I was asking if you can tell anyone in the military what to do. You are a civilian correct?

The President is not a civilian. As you say he is the CinC. He is technically in the military.

The whole point of my posts is to show that no civilian has a say in what the military does. With the exceptions of those in Congress who only goes so far as to say weather or not our military can be used in a war or not. Beyond that no civilian has a say what so ever in military matters.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No I was asking if you can tell anyone in the military what to do. You are a civilian correct?

The President is not a civilian. As you say he is the CinC. He is technically in the military.

The whole point of my posts is to show that no civilian has a say in what the military does. With the exceptions of those in Congress who only goes so far as to say weather or not our military can be used in a war or not. Beyond that no civilian has a say what so ever in military matters.
Click to expand...

Being in the chain of command does not make you part of the military. He is part of the civilian authority. SecDef and the secretary of each branch are civilians in the chain of command as well.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, what business do military commanders with 30-odd years of experience have making military decisions. A general, with a couple different degress and untold hours of education in the military sciences couldn't possibly know more than a civilian president with a degree in basket weaving, when it comes to tactical and strategic matters. That would be totally nuts to do something like that and yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Problem is there will always be another commander, with the same 30-odd years of experience who will be advising to do exactly the opposite of what the first commander recommends. The final decision must be made by a (hopefully) smart President who, after listening to all advise....goes with the most reasonable/logical choice.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
No I was asking if you can tell anyone in the military what to do. You are a civilian correct?

The President is not a civilian. As you say he is the CinC. He is technically in the military.

The whole point of my posts is to show that no civilian has a say in what the military does. With the exceptions of those in Congress who only goes so far as to say weather or not our military can be used in a war or not. Beyond that no civilian has a say what so ever in military matters.
Click to expand...

The President is technically & un-technically a civilian & no, I can't give orders to the military because I'm not CinC.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The theater commander should have the president's full support when making decisions about tactics and strategy. IOW, if the theater commander says he needs it, the president let's him have it.
Click to expand...

I agree, BUT......the President, aka Commander and Chief, has final say and makes the decision based on his military commanders.

I am curious why this is even a POLL? I thought this question was clearly laid out in the Constitution; did someone try to change it? :doh
 
Truth Detector said:
I agree, BUT......the President, aka Commander and Chief, has final say and makes the decision based on his military commanders.

I am curious why this is even a POLL? I thought this question was clearly laid out in the Constitution; did someone try to change it? :doh
Click to expand...

It is clearly defined in the Constitution, but many posts here seem to not understand/believe that.
 
apdst said:
I think it behooves the civilian reps to go along with what the theater commander says should be done.
Click to expand...

Not always. Yes the commander may know more about strategies and tactics, but wars are usually fight for overall political reasons and have political overtones. It's the president's job to make sure that the military decisions help the political aim, something the generals might not fully grasp.
 
Devil505 said:
The President is technically & un-technically a civilian & no, I can't give orders to the military because I'm not CinC.
Click to expand...

While technically the President may be a civilian I would argue that in reality, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he is not really a civilian.
 
Kal'Stang said:
While technically the President may be a civilian I would argue that in reality, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he is not really a civilian.
Click to expand...
Not really relevant...I'd say. You are arguing semantics. (neither Clinton nor Obama even knew how to give a proper salute & had zero military training. Whatever semantic argument you make you cannot argue the fact that they had no military experience at all & are civilians.....as the founding fathers intended to lead our military)
 
Last edited:
The President is the Commander and Chief, that is that. It is clearly written in the Constitution and leaves no room for change or misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Not really relevant...I'd say. You are arguing semantics. (neither Clinton nor Obama even knew how to give a proper salute & had zero military training. Whatever semantic argument you make you cannot argue the fact that they had no military experience at all & are civilians.....as the founding fathers intended to lead our military)
Click to expand...

This is 100% true.

Repeated for truth.
 
apdst said:
He's not qualified to make decisions at the small unit level.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. He is allowed to do so if he chooses, that is the law of the land. If one of those people chose not to follow his order, they would be subject to punishment under the UCMJ.
 
Redress said:
Every single person in the military is still obligated to follow the president's orders. No exceptions. There are things a president should and should not do with that authority, but it is not limited legally. Try and not follow the president's orders while in the military and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let a president issue an order that is unlawful, contrary to exsiting battelfield doctrine, or a violation of military regulations, a soldier refuse to follow that order and see just how it does go. I would love to see that case play out; especially with the current Chump in Charge.
 
Redress said:
Irrelevant. He is allowed to do so if he chooses, that is the law of the land. If one of those people chose not to follow his order, they would be subject to punishment under the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's very relivant. You were in the service, you should know that. Is the president going to show up on an aircraft carrier and tell a green shirt how to do his job? Common sense tells me that that just ain't gonna happen.

I don't know about the Navy, but in the Army, the days of following blindly are over.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, let a president issue an order that is unlawful, contrary to exsiting battelfield doctrine, or a violation of military regulations, a soldier refuse to follow that order and see just how it does go. I would love to see that case play out; especially with the current Chump in Charge.
Click to expand...

An unlawful order is not what we are talking about. If the president walks up to a soldier and issues a lawful order, the soldier is required to comply, despite what you claimed.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, let a president issue an order that is unlawful, contrary to exsiting battelfield doctrine, or a violation of military regulations, a soldier refuse to follow that order and see just how it does go. I would love to see that case play out; especially with the current Chump in Charge.
Click to expand...

Of your examples, only disobeying an unlawful order would/should be a successful defense at any court martial. The others are just BS.

If a President orders you to:

1."Execute that prisoner, right now!".....That is an unlawful order & you can be prosecuted for following it.

2. "Walk your post in a military manner but stick your index fingers in your nose.".....That is a lawful order & must be obeyed. (no law against Silly orders!):lol:
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
An unlawful order is not what we are talking about. If the president walks up to a soldier and issues a lawful order, the soldier is required to comply, despite what you claimed.
Click to expand...

You said that soldiers on the battlefield are obligated to follow the president's order, "no exceptions". Not only is a soldier not obligated to obey an unlawful order, he isn't obligated to obey any order that is contrary to current combat doctrine, or military regulations.

Sorry to break it to you, but a soldier isn't obligated to blindly follow the president to that soldier's death.
 
Devil505 said:
Of your examples, only disobeying an unlawful order would/should be a successful defense at any court martial. The others are just BS.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. Anyone that's served in the actual military will tell you the same thing and I ain't talkin' about some POG, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom