• 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 Joint Chiefs-The Military Professionals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42

Devil505

Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
315
Location
Masschusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?
 
Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?

While the President has control of the actions of our military the President doesn't control everything about the military. The President cannot go to a full out year upon year war with anyone without Congress's approval. The President also cannot fund the military, that is also done through Congress.

Also while you are technically correct to say that the civilians control what the military does by electing the President they don't really because once that President is elected they don't need civilians approval to use the military.
 
Also while you are technically correct to say that the civilians control what the military does by electing the President they don't really because once that President is elected they don't need civilians approval to use the military.

Not following your argument?
 
Last edited:
Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?

Yes. The military is an arm of the government and must be controlled by the government and civilian authority.

Also, with regards to a middle-ground option on your poll, civilian authority but allowing the military to determine tactics: though we are given to assume that the commanders know what is best "on the ground," this is simply not always the case.

Any Civil War buff can tell you that had Lincoln listened and deferred to his generals on the ground, we'd have lost pretty quick. The first 4 or 5 commanders were inept and would have led us to diaster had they been given a free hand.

This isn't to say that a general can't be right and the President can't be wrong, but it's something to consider.
 
Someone needs to watch the guardians.
 
Both of these options are correct:

The President-Civilian Control
The President, but the military should decide battlefield tactics.

Generally speaking, the military should decide tactics, but the president should still have the final say.
 
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.
 
Civilian control the military is an absolute necessity in any free society.
 
the presisdnet is not supposed to be a military leader some times it is good to have a regular person in control but a military leader needs to decide the tactics to complete the objective because with out that we run in to another bay of piggs
 
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.

What if the field commander is full of crap? During the beginning of the Civil War, U.S. Generals afraid of their own shadow had approximately triple the strength of the confederates in Virginia, but refused to attack claiming they needed more men. They sat and waited and waited, until Lee made them pay. Had Lincoln ignored them and ordered an attack, the Army of Nothern Virginia could have been crushed right out of the gate. History is full of examples of inept generals.

There are times when a Commander can simply be wrong. We must not assume they are always correct simply because they have stars on their collar.
 
Last edited:
Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?
A great idea, and ever better if as a criteria for running for public office that the candidate serve at least two full years in the military, as a young man..
 
A great idea, and ever better if as a criteria for running for public office that the candidate serve at least two full years in the military, as a young man..

Why serve in the military as opposed to simply "serving your country." There are more ways to serve the country than to join the military are there not?
 
the presisdnet is not supposed to be a military leader some times it is good to have a regular person in control but a military leader needs to decide the tactics to complete the objective because with out that we run in to another bay of piggs
Try some proper punctuation and spelling, Greeno.
 
What if the field commander is full of crap? During the beginning of the Civil War, U.S. Generals afraid of their own shadow had approximately triple the strength of the confederates in Virginia, but refused to attack claiming they needed more men. They sat and waited and waited, until Lee made them pay. Had Lincoln ignored them and ordered an attack, the Army of Nothern Virginia could have been crushed right out of the gate. History is full of examples of inept generals.


In that case, he should be relieved and someone who isn't full of crap promoted in his place.

The military can't be micro-managed by the president, especially a president that has zero military experience, or education.

Speaking of the Civil War, read up on Fredricksburg and see how political micro-management pressured Burnside into launching a failed assault. Burnside didn't want to attack Maryes Heights head on, but political pressure didn't leave him any choice.

There are times when a Commander can simply be wrong. We must not assume they are always correct simply because they have stars on their collar.

True, but it's a question of credibility. Who's strategy would you accept first: a military officer, with 30 years of education and experience, or a politician with a law degree? Generally speaking stupid officers don't become generals.
 
Last edited:
Why serve in the military as opposed to simply "serving your country." There are more ways to serve the country than to join the military are there not?
True
But I'd think that it would be good if a potential Commander in
Chief had some military experience..
 
True
But I'd think that it would be good if a potential Commander in
Chief had some military experience..

In theory, would he not then surround himself with some of the most intelligent military minds in the country to help him make decisions?

I see what you are saying, and I agree in a way, I want the President to have military experience as well, but I would not view it as a 100% must when deciding who to vote for.
 
The military can't be micro-managed by the president, especially a president that has zero military experience, or education.



Who's strategy would you accept first: a military officer, with 30 years of education and experience, or a politician with a law degree? Generally speaking stupid officers don't become generals.

I think the founding fathers had it exactly right conferring absolute civilian control over the military. While it's assumed that military officers are more expert in military strategy & tactics, this is not always the case. (Truman fired Gen. MacArthur during the Korean War as MacArthur publicly advocated attacking Red China with atomic weapons, which Truman was against)
I know people can argue this point, but I agree with this axiom: "War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means."
von Clausewitz
I agree with that theory & since MacArthur was trying to push a political decision (a-bomb attacks against China) he simply overstepped his Constitutional role. Generals are not elected by anyone & therefore are not responsible too the voters, that is why we give ultimate decisions to an elected, civilian President.

It may be fairly argued that some Presidents (LBJ comes to mind) micro-manage war too much, but it is my belief that no President should take the word of his military men as anything more than professional advise to be considered, along with the advise of all his other (civilian) advisers, who are presumably professionals in their field as well.. (ie Diplomacy, Economics, etc)
 
Last edited:
The President sets goals, decides on overall missions, and decides on any rules of engagement needed for a particular mission, and that is as it should be. Congress is needed to declare war(though this is unused in modern times) and set funding(and denying funding would be political suicide), and this is as it should be. The military decided tactics and strategies within the above framework. All of this is appropriate.
 
The military decided tactics and strategies within the above framework. All of this is appropriate.
As CinC the President has ultimate authority even down to the tactical level, if he chooses to exercise it. For the most part, especially since LBJ, most Presidents won't micro-manage anymore. (LBJ would pick specific targets to bomb & what ordinance to be used)
 
As CinC the President has ultimate authority even down to the tactical level, if he chooses to exercise it. For the most part, especially since LBJ, most Presidents won't micro-manage anymore. (LBJ would pick specific targets to bomb & what ordinance to be used)

The only part a president will manage on a tactical level is rules of engagement, and possibly deciding targets. It should be avoided as much as possible, and is not done much. Technically, you are correct, but practically, not so much.
 
Speaking of the Civil War, read up on Fredricksburg and see how political micro-management pressured Burnside into launching a failed assault. Burnside didn't want to attack Maryes Heights head on, but political pressure didn't leave him any choice.

.

Actually, that's another good example of a bad General. Burnside was given superior alternatives by his subordinates (fording the river immediately and attacking the rebs before they achieved a strong defensive position), but he blundered and chose to wait several days for a pontoon bridge to be brought into place.

He had an alternative, but chose to wait and assault a fortified position. Lincoln had nothing to do with this particular decision.

But generally speaking you are correct on one count; the generals never wanted to attack Lee. It was the constant interference from Lincoln that finally allowed the army to rotate through enough commanders to find one willing to attack and win the war (Grant). Had he left it up to any of the first 4 or 5 commanders to prosecute the war, the north would have lost.
 
Last edited:
The only part a president will manage on a tactical level is rules of engagement, and possibly deciding targets. It should be avoided as much as possible, and is not done much. Technically, you are correct, but practically, not so much.
I usually agree with you Redress but not on this point. As CinC, a President has the authority to decide any military tactic or minuscule point that he/she wants. If President Obama suddenly orders all our soldiers to start wearing their skivvies on the outside of their pants from now on, that order is legal, binding & enforceable by court martial if violated.
Now, if the question is Should a President micro-manage the military, I would generally say no, but he always has that authority & it does occasionally need to be exercised, imo.
example: During the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK micro-managed how our navy would respond to any Soviet provocation at sea near Cuba., regrdless of standing Navy ROE's ........JFK ordered that no shots would be fired unless specifically authorized by the WH. No exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom