What do you think the role of the military is in America's foreign policy?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:06:37 -0400

RP Members and Connections I posted this question before the election was decided and its not politics (well not quite) So, I ask this question again here in 2017:

"What do you think the United States Military's role should be in American's Foreign Policy?"

Do we have a well defined role or is it hit or miss?

How important is the POTUS and Congress role in establishing and defining the military's role in American Foreign Policy?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 13 at 2016 12:09 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:26 -0400

I hope that the military once again will be used in a consistent and coherent foreign policy similar to the way it was used under POTUS Ronald Reagan COL Mikel J. Burroughs.
We haven't seen that for the last 7 years.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made May 13 at 2016 12:13 PM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:13:03 -0400

The military's main role is defense of the country. It has no role in making or enforcing foreign policy.

Foreign policy is the sole purview of the executive branch. Congress can pass bills in support of foreign policy, or choose to not support it, but should not be involved in forming it. I know that sounds contradictory, but it works in my head.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 13 at 2016 12:23 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:23:15 -0400

Advisory to State along with the intel community. Problem is State (Administration) doesn't listen much to either.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2016 12:27 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:27:56 -0400

If you want my official answer it's in here: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll3/id/2434

The bottom line is that the military is the defacto REGIONAL foreign policy arm of the United States Government. Not by design, but by circumstance. There is no other element of government with a functioning regional policy capability. The State Department is entrenched to its soul in the primacy of the ambassador, a position directly responsible to the President and nominally responsible to the Department of State. Their regional bureaus are information centers and are not usually in the regions they are supposed to support. No other element of the government has any notable expeditionary capability. Meanwhile, we have created JIATFs and JIACGs which are bringing in interagency personnel to Combatant Command Headquarters, providing them with the capability to answer the requirements created by the operating environment in a joint and interagency way. We not only have the ability to create a regional plan and effort, we have the means to carry that plan out. I believe the NSC is still ineffectual and the NSA (and his currently besieged deputy) is still just a glorified assistant. There is a huge problem in the creation of foreign policy and its execution at all levels. The system needs to be reformed and the organizations cited in my earlier paper have presented a way to do so.

Interagency cometh: is the national security system of 1947 capable of handling the challenges of...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 13 at 2016 12:34 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:34:19 -0400

We all know the book answer: The roles include providing military guidance and recommendations (JCS), planning and preparing (JS and COCOMS), and OT&E (Services) to execute America's foreign policy on behalf of the CINC. But the crux is whether the guidance and recommendations are taken, and how deep into execution our civilian leaders' fingers go. Today, the power players in the president's NSC are sycophants and friends with no military background. They either loathe or ignore the military advice, and set ROEs so strict, sometimes our guys think they're not even allowed to defend themselves or another. That's where good people get killed and we start taking an issue with it.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 13 at 2016 12:34 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:34:51 -0400

The military is the snarling dog of war that you hold on a short leash, restrained only by the rational hand of a government that has no desire to let go and yet, will not hesitate if the nation, its citizens, or vital interests are threatened. Then, once unleashed, will be allowed to defeat the enemy, utterly defeat it. To be effective, it must be strong, well-manned, well-trained, well-equipped, well-funded, and respected by the citizenry at large. Ultimately, it's mission is to maintain the peace (which is the absence of war) by virtue of the fact that those who would be aggressors fear that it will be unleashed on them if they misbehave.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made May 13 at 2016 12:46 PM

SSgt Robert Marx — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:46:18 -0400

The military per se responds to events in the world as the president directs. Scandals arise when leaders attempt to conduct foreign affairs outside of the formal channels of gov't, such as the State Dept., and include Pres. Reagan's Iran/Contra fiasco. The conduct of foreign affairs in the USA rests in the purvey of the Executive Branch with the Senate giving advice and ratification of submitted treaties.

Response by MAJ Andrew Ready made May 13 at 2016 2:35 PM

MAJ Andrew Ready — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:35:15 -0400

the military should be for defending the US. Not world peacekeeping.

Response by SGT David T. made May 13 at 2016 3:38 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 13 May 2016 15:38:00 -0400

Same role as it always been: to be the continuation of politics (policy) through other means.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2016 5:04 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 May 2016 17:04:38 -0400

I go back to uncle Carl on this....War is politics by other means...we are but pawns in the great political game.

Response by SSG Vik Polivka made May 13 at 2016 6:15 PM

SSG Vik Polivka — Fri, 13 May 2016 18:15:11 -0400

To serve as a deterrent to war. When that fails, to win war.

I got all kinds of "board answers", I can do this all day.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made May 13 at 2016 7:26 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Fri, 13 May 2016 19:26:44 -0400

Missing from most of the responses here is the fact that the military does not make foreign policy. Sorry all you flag officers who think you do. The military simply enforces the will of the elected and appointed government officials on foreign policy matters. Despite all our lofty aspirations, the military is subordinate to POTUS, State Department and Congress in all matters of foreign policy. We may advise, but just because you are an advisor doesn't mean that the body making the decisions has to follow that advice. Look, I lived through Vietnam and saw/participated in all sorts of unwise military operations against the advice of the military, but the bottom line was the military did what we were told. Fortunately everyone learned much from Vietnam and the military now plays a more significant and respected role in supporting foreign policy. Good or bad that's our role in foreign policy; supporting.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made May 13 at 2016 8:04 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 13 May 2016 20:04:21 -0400

We are a warrior culture and too often use our imperial powers. It does not help that Japan and Germany are postured defensively. I believe the allies with the most power is S Korea, France, and the UK. However, it looks like every ally is content seeing us as the primary protagonists.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made May 13 at 2016 8:24 PM

MSgt Michael Smith — Fri, 13 May 2016 20:24:50 -0400

This is a good question. I think the military is relied upon waaay to much as nation builders and police forces, when we should be letting them do their jobs as war fighters. We have a diplomatic core, along with a whole host of NGOs that are specifically designed and organized to do nation building and diplomacy. But the politicians in charge love to use the military to overthrow regimes and destabilize entire regions without any clue or resource to maintain security in what's left behind. So they put the military into roles which they are not designed nor trained for, and court martial them when they act like soldiers. Its wrong, it is a terrible method, and it isn't fair to the men and women in uniform. There is no reason why a soldier should ever be court-martialed for acting with honor in an impossible situation, which he should not be placed in in the first place.

Response by MAJ Michael Pauling made May 14 at 2016 9:56 AM

MAJ Michael Pauling — Sat, 14 May 2016 09:56:49 -0400

The military should have no role outside the protection of National Interests/National Security. It would be nice if we could go back to a time when Congress was more involved with War Declarations. These "Executive Actions" have usurped the Constitutional Prerogative of the Congress and they seem fine with that because it makes them less accountable. Our policy (regardless of which Political Party is making it) is a mess because there is not measuarble "End State" of military mission that is removing the military from the solution. As for defining the military role? Well, we have those experts to figure that out.

Response by MAJ Raymond Haynes made May 15 at 2016 2:48 PM

MAJ Raymond Haynes — Sun, 15 May 2016 14:48:13 -0400

The role of the military is to conduct operations to attrit an opposing combatant, to achieve political goals set forth by our civilian leaders. Right or wrong let's not start re-writing the rules at this late date. I promised COL Mikel J. Burroughs that I would try to keep a civil tongue in my mouth.

Response by COL Ted Mc made May 16 at 2016 11:47 AM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 16 May 2016 11:47:53 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; The role of ANY country's military in that country's foreign policy should be restricted to enforcing that country's foreign policy as set by that country's government.

Where a country's foreign policy is set by that country's military then you can feel pretty safe having all your fillings pulled out to toss into the pot and betting the farm on the fact that that country has a military government.

Response by Cpl Michael Crowley made May 20 at 2016 10:37 AM

Cpl Michael Crowley — Fri, 20 May 2016 10:37:38 -0400

Everything must experience flux while it evolves. What we are lacking, in my opinion, is the understanding of new technology, culture, and needs and capabilities within the individual units. We are also slow to adopt a newly proven model because we don't want to reinvent the wheel. What people seem to forget is that the first cars had bicycle tires and modern cars do not. Sometimes we need to reinvent the wheel so that we can stay in front of the traffic. We, as a country, are stretched over a chasm between the old ways and the new. We see that the past is crumbling underfoot, but we still don't fully commit to the future. We are a world power and a world market. Our power and money should be our interest and guarding our international interests is merely the logically prudent course of action.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 25 at 2017 4:35 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:35:50 -0400

By definition the Armed Forces of the US military and the DoD are an extension of US foreign policy. We are not to enter into conflict lightly in any case. COL Mikel J. Burroughs
The National Security Strategy (NSS) is the highest and most important national strategy document. The National Military Strategy (NMS) is subordinate to the NSS. The National Defense Authorization Act and National Defense Appropriation Act is debated and passed by Congress each year as the specific authorization and funding documents to implement the NMS within the bounds of the NSS.
When deliberately provoked by any nation of non-state actor, they and we need to understand that we should deliver an overwhelming military response which is along the lines of total war.
The POTUS has the authority to respond with military force for a limited period. During that period it is the duty of Congress to debate the use of force and come to a resolution.
The Department of State (DoS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) work together in foreign policy to achieve the goals of the National Security Strategy - sometimes DoD lads and usually DoS leads. they always work in tandem along different lines.
[FYI I did not realize this is an update to a question I responded to long ago. This response is meant to stand on its own and it replaces my earlier response]
FYI LTC Bill Koski LTC Wayne Brandon LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. LTC Private RallyPoint Member CPT Gabe Snell Capt Tom Brown Capt Seid Waddell CW5 Private RallyPoint Member SGM Mikel Dawson SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SSgt Robert Marx CPT Jack Durish Maj Marty Hogan

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Jul 25 at 2017 4:44 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:44:59 -0400

I used to have my LinkedIn profile heading as "Foreign Policy Implementation Professional."

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 25 at 2017 4:55 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:55:41 -0400

My answer hasn't changed. Armed force is the snarling dog held on a tight leash. It provides incentive for would-be aggressors to be nice or we'll let it loose. Once loose, it is not to be restrained otherwise it is muzzled and not able to deter aggression.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Jul 25 at 2017 6:35 PM

Maj Marty Hogan — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:35:21 -0400

The military's only role is to be the armed response offensive/defensive to the executive and legislative bodies that decide our fate. Unfortunately that is why we languished in Nam and repeat our PC mistakes in the Middle East. Great thought provoking question and thanks for asking my opinion COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 7:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:29:57 -0400

Response by 1SG John B. Enlow made Jul 25 at 2017 9:06 PM

1SG John B. Enlow — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:06:11 -0400

Good question, Colonel. I always felt the military to be just one tool in our foreign policy 'toolbox' - like a hammer. Unfortunately, politicians will from time to time smash their thumb by misusing the hammer, and then throw it as far as they can - only to search for it again when they need it. My Dad used to say, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools." I'm reminded of that every time I hear a politician criticize the military.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 25 at 2017 9:26 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:26:08 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs A well equipped, well trained, always ready, and 24/7 forward deployed military is what gives us the ability to direct and influence foreign policy. The military is diplomacy by other means, and always our last resort. When, where, and how the POTUS, Congress and DOD decide to employ our military is another issue entirely. Global engagement can go a long way to deter war, and that is always our objective. Power is best used sparingly, and without warning.

https://www.thelightningpress.com/the-instruments-of-national-power/

Instruments of National Power - The Lightning Press SMARTbooks

The Lightning Press publishes a variety of joint military reference books. Browse our collection of military reference SMARTbooks or digital books.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made Jul 25 at 2017 10:24 PM

Capt Dwayne Conyers — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:24:49 -0400

We follow POTUS’ orders

Response by SGT Mark Halmrast made Jul 26 at 2017 12:53 AM

SGT Mark Halmrast — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:53:17 -0400

Another great question and a suite of excellent responses. My .02...

The military's role in America's foreign policy is to impose its will on and destroy the enemy with extreme prejudice when called on.

Use of the military beyond that wrongly takes advantage of the military's posture of service and spirit of determination, with the risk of eroding both.

We have the most capable military the world has ever known. Let it do its job.

Thanks for the question,

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 26 at 2017 6:52 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:52:53 -0400

One: protect our common interest, two: protect our citizens here and abroad, three: lend a hand to a struggling country.

Response by SPC Tom Clark made Jul 26 at 2017 11:19 AM

SPC Tom Clark — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:19:05 -0400

I truly believe our Foreign Policy for the military is 'hit or miss." We react to situations, that alone makes it hit or miss. We do no start situations, or preempt situations (like the Japanese of WWII).

Response by SPC Don Wynn made Jul 26 at 2017 12:17 PM

SPC Don Wynn — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:17:54 -0400

We are the iron fist enclosed in the velvet glove. When necessary, take off the glove!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 12:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:21:31 -0400

Considering that the US has troops in something like 150 countries, I'd say it's a pretty big role.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 12:38 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:38:02 -0400

I had a conversation with a State Dept representative many years ago who viewed the military as a huge gorilla in a cage. State would jingle the keys to the cage or rattle the door threating to unleash the beast when they needed to drive home their point to a foreign power.

Response by MAJ Alan Reiter made Jul 26 at 2017 12:48 PM

MAJ Alan Reiter — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:48:35 -0400

Diplomacy is the carrot and the military is the stick. Diplomacy can not be successful if you don't have the threat of force.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 26 at 2017 12:49 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:49:19 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Enemies of our nation have become ideals and organizations as opposed to aggressive nation states. Yes we still have North Korea that is a pain in the 4th point of contact. Yes China is flexing their might in the Pacific. Yes our relationship with Russia is strained to say the least. None of those is likely to erupt into a full scale war anytime soon. We are still dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. We are dealing with ISIS and radicalized Islam. Unfortunately, the face of warfare has become terrorists driving a truck through a crowded square, shooting up a movie theater, bombing a marathon, and other small scale attacks that make people afraid. The military is not much use against these types of strikes. The military can be employed to help train local forces as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. It can be used to launch air strikes against places where terrorists are holed up, as in Raqqa Syria and Mossul Iraq. I see a need for more soldiers to be trained in special warfare. The special operations command warriors are going to be the most useful tool in the new world of terrorist organizations. It will be a matter of maintaining a traditional military force in the event that an aggressive nation decides to attack the United States or one of our allies, and increasing the ability of American Special Operations to be deployed long term in efforts to eliminate terrorist organizations where they live. Preferably before they can launch an attack on a civilian population.

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Jul 26 at 2017 12:52 PM

SSG Robert Perrotto — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:52:30 -0400

while we are a long way from "gunboat" diplomacy, the American military is a large part of our foreign policy - Korea and vietnam were fought to prevent the spread of communism, both desert storm and the Iraq campaign came down to oil, and the current conflict in Syria is a proxy war. The american military is not only a force to support and defend our way of life, but also to support, defend, and enforce our interests.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jul 26 at 2017 5:06 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:06:25 -0400

I have to agree, we the Military do not set nor control foreign policy, that is the POTUS/legislature thru the State Department, NOR are we the regional controllers of ANYTHING!. By LAW, every US citizen/asset is responsible to the POTUS thru the appointed Ambassador of the area! Life might be easier and ROE would be simpler, but the LAWFUL bottom line is that we function under and are controlled by our civilian government.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jul 26 at 2017 5:32 PM

PO3 John Wagner — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:32:43 -0400

I think that if president Trump "presides" and makes decisions based on the solid information and informed opinion of the cautious and wise men he has appointed... Such as Mad Dog Mathis, a man whose ferocity is only matched by his love of human life and his dedication to getting his men home alive.. that our military role and application in the world will be dictated by appropriate need and actions will be measured in effectiveness rather than tossing a massive strike force out there.
The obvious example was the missile strike in Syria. Those SOB's got their heads down in a hurry,
message received loud and clear without a boot on the ground..(save perhaps a few observers which will remain unacknowledged) A few aircraft supervising the effectiveness of the fire.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2017 5:35 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:35:42 -0400

MACRO: Enforcers. Protect our national assets abroad. Planners and operators in support of the overall National Security effort. Crisis managers. Assisting with OOTW, humanitarian and otherwise. Showing the flag, as a reminder to bad actors i.e. port calls. Such other duties as the POTUS may direct.

MICRO: To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. To repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Jul 26 at 2017 5:53 PM

PO1 Ron Clark — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:53:54 -0400

The military should always have a role in America's Foreign Policy because after all, it's the boots on the ground that has to deal with the consequences of good or failed foreign policies. We our service members are in-country, they have to live by the laws of that country or risk creating an international incident, and sometimes like everything else it's either hit or miss, success or failure there is no exact science when dealing with humans beings period, what we may love, our host country may despise. The POTUS is the most integral part of this policy, for it is he and Congress and the ambassadors which negotiates the policies with other leaders and to make the best policy choices they can make to ensure the safety of our personnel on the ground and to accomplish the mission. I hope that this makes sense!

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jul 26 at 2017 8:53 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:53:16 -0400

We can't even decide which uniform to wear. There is no policy recently we were bombing both sides in Syria. Actually that was the best strategy we have come up with

Response by SSG Richard Hackwith made Jul 27 at 2017 10:31 PM

SSG Richard Hackwith — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:31:20 -0400

As the famous military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz one said;

Response by PO2 Robert Moore made Jul 28 at 2017 9:54 AM

PO2 Robert Moore — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:54:00 -0400

Short Answer:
Military is for response to failed policies, foreign or domestic.
Anchors aweigh, mates

Response by MSG Mark Million made Jul 28 at 2017 12:00 PM

MSG Mark Million — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:00:48 -0400

I believe the militaries role in foreign policy should go no further than to advise the President of where we stand militarily should military action be considered on foreign soil.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2017 3:43 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:43:28 -0400

To execute America's foreign policy? We got the execute part down, it's the policy part that causes problems.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Jul 28 at 2017 4:35 PM

SSG Ray Elliott — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:35:52 -0400

For good or bad the military is subordinate to the POTUS, and our other elected officials to be used as directed by these elected bodies. When push comes to shove our role in foreign Policy is defined by those who are elected to the offices of power and authority over us. It's the military's role to to be as strong and prepared as possible to perform the missions assigned to us by those in authority over us.

Response by LTC Jeff Shearer made Jul 28 at 2017 5:37 PM

LTC Jeff Shearer — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:37:41 -0400

Wow COL, this is one of those questions that is worthy of a group of brothers/sisters in arms discussing, maybe over a glass of whiskey. The question/discussion is very important, more than the average bear knows.

My thought is mutt-faceted:
I think we need to break down the core of the military's function first, it is National Security, that is it in its most simple terms. I am to lazy to look it up but I am pretty sure our oath as members of the armed services says it all, deal with threats foreign and domestic. Continuing with those over simplified definitions, at the end of the day our military is there to export violence in furtherance of protecting the USA its citizens and her Allies.
Spending the majority of my time on the SOF side of the business I will say some of the areas are a little less black and white and a little more gray but it the root of the issue is still security for the US or our Allies.

Reference the military making foreign policy: I am a damn smart guy, I am a knuckle dragging barbarian, however, I am pretty damn smart. As smart as I am, I never made foreign and have been very fortunate that no foreign policy was ever written as a result of something I did wrong. The easy way to rememberer is we don't make policy we just enforce it.

COL I have to say that is a real good question, love it.

Response by Sgt Albert Castro made Jul 28 at 2017 8:47 PM

Sgt Albert Castro — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:47:00 -0400

Number one priority? Defend the country! Aside from that, most of the heavy hitters commenting on this topic are getting it right. Of course since Korea, politicians will raise their ugly head. My youngest son is a brand new Marine and I hope POTUS and company do it right going forward. "Our's is not to question why. Our's is just to do or die." Good Bless our Troops and may God Bless America.

Response by MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan made Jul 28 at 2017 10:12 PM

MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 22:12:41 -0400

IMHO, the last time we had what seemed to be a well-defined policy was Desert Shield/Storm, but even that got shaky as the situation began to wind down. We don't make the policy, but the experience of troops at multiple levels needs to be considered as vital information when the diplomacy folks begin making decisions that could wind up putting any and all of us in danger. I fear that we have a bureaucracy that is afraid to make sound decisions that will keep us safe and strong as a country.

Response by MSgt Roger Settlemyer made Jul 28 at 2017 10:48 PM

MSgt Roger Settlemyer — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 22:48:09 -0400

Great Queston Col Mike Burroughs. The Military is Button is a Glass Case on the wall, with a small hammer attached. In Red saying In Trouble Break Glass and push button. We are the last resort, When something happens around the world the first question is "Where are our Air Craft Carriers or CVA. We can't be the policeman of the world. It bled Rome, The United Kingdom dry. My only wish is politicians should serve in the Military to understand our problems. Or have something on the line in case we fail.. When it hits home they might understand. In War there no such thing as being Political Correct. Yes Rules of Engagement are importand it draws a line in thje sand.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 2:34 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:34:26 -0400

Unfortunately being a student of US History the US military was never just designed for the defense of this nation but to enforce our authority over interest overseas like the battle of Tripoli during the Madison administration kinda symbolized what the role of the US Military will be and its been the same since it's just expanded in scale as the country expanded and its authority grew with it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2017 2:55 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:55:46 -0400

The military does NOT set foreign policy. The President and Congress pretty much take care of that. Sometimes the military is called upon to ENFORCE America's foreign policy, one of the reasons a military exists.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jul 29 at 2017 3:46 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:46:58 -0400

First, the military has its title 10 and 14 responsibilities to fight and win the nation's wars and protect national interests. Outside of declared war, we execute missions under the war powers act at he direction of the president, who must consult congress. Also outside of War is to provide theater security cooperation via The geographic combatant commander and the ambassador's goals and objectives. Humanitarian relief would fall in there too. All of these things have political currency value to influence Foriegn policy. The role we have is prescribed.

The President must direct our role via the Combatant Commanders and the DoD. Congress enters into treaties and are engaged by the POTUS on the elements of the war powers act to continue military operations.

Response by PO1 Joseph Glennon made Jul 29 at 2017 10:47 PM

PO1 Joseph Glennon — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:47:18 -0400

I think our military has (and has always had) a multiple-fold purpose:
Cause fear or trepidation to our enemies
Inspire confidence with our allies
Provide humanitarian aid (or a vehicle for humanitarian aid) to allies in need
Punish those who act against the United States, or our interests

Our military is both huge and openly intimidating, and small and precise. We can act on any terrain, and on any scale.

In diplomacy, our military should be both the stick and the carrot.

Response by Erin Nelson made Jul 30 at 2017 11:23 AM

Erin Nelson — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 11:23:25 -0400

It should play a greater role in our policies and legislative matters which dictate the role of military. It should be a matter of course, to seek the counsel of a member or committee if you will, from each branch of the military. In terms of the campaigns today have served architect, I have employed each candidate to create what I call the kitchen cabinet. A grouping of three or four trusted loyal individuals that you can bounce your ideas off of and trust them to tell you that you're being an idiot if you're being an idiot. I think Congress needs this should be a grouping mixed of Scholars and Military, why Scholars because if we do not learn from our history they were doomed to repeat the same mistakes so it helps to have somebody that is really knowledgeable in that history preferably with a balance of political science and geopolitical history. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. And neither do we wish to take full Onslaught into the next Cold War or in this case a hot War, due to inexperienced overtired emotionally involved politicians make a mistake. Does not mean that makes mistakes won't still be made of course they will but when we have the ability to mine map together from different perspectives then overall we shall have a greater likelihood of success in our intended goals. It also helps to have an economist on hand that can rationally describe Financial requirements as the military describes its physical needs to safely accomplish whatever mission is before them, so we do not get caught up in even more , halfway actions. We are the USA these colors do not run but neither should we sharpen a bunch of sticks and go poke the Bears if you're going to poke the Bears you better be ready with bear trap in a couple good guns LOL, COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by PFC Greg Ortiz made Jul 30 at 2017 11:27 AM

PFC Greg Ortiz — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 11:27:38 -0400

I feel the military has but 1 purpose, to fight for Americans Freedoms and our National defense , and of course for those that are our allies, if they are attacked. The military should have zero involvement in foreign policies, we are the sword of the American people

Response by AN Christopher Crayne made Jul 30 at 2017 11:31 AM

AN Christopher Crayne — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 11:31:11 -0400

The military has been and will be ready to act in support of POTUS and Congress for foreign policy. I don't believe the roles have been defined though.
The President of the United States along with congress have the power to make foreign policy. The United States Constitution has granted both the president and Congress power over the development of foreign policy. Presidential power to implement foreign policy is fairly broad. Presidential powers include the power to negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors.
POTUS. Executive branch attorneys often cite Justice George Sutherland’s expansive interpretation of the president’s foreign affairs powers in that case. The president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote on behalf of the court. “He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries and especially is this true in time of war,”

Response by SSgt Rob Millard made Jul 30 at 2017 11:37 AM

SSgt Rob Millard — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 11:37:39 -0400

I spent years as a police negotiator both in the military and in the civilian world. The main thing that made me able to negotiate any situation from a position of power was that I want backed up by extreme force ( USAF Security Police Tactical Neutralization Team in the military and SWAT in the civilian world).
The United States military projects massive might all over the world. It alone is what ensures the United States will always negotiate it's foreign policy from a position of extreme power.

Response by PO1 Mike Dean made Jul 30 at 2017 11:55 AM

PO1 Mike Dean — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 11:55:51 -0400

Plain and simple.... The military projects American power around the world and protects it's foreign trade interests as well as that of our allies. How that is done is determined by the POTUS and advisors. Policy is not the responsibility of the military. Carrying it out in accordance with the Constitution is.

Response by SSG Alvin Amezquita made Jul 30 at 2017 12:15 PM

SSG Alvin Amezquita — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 12:15:24 -0400

I have read a lot of the responses on this thread and many are on point. But we seem to not understand that the military is basically a tool for the government to use for any means necessary to protect the interest of this country and interest of its allies. And when you unfortunately mix politics it usually does not go well for the military.
We have seen this time and time again we go to war then the war ends and then they dismantle the military. They don't give a second thought about it and they tear it apart piece by piece. But then when shit hits the fan again in some foreign land they decide to build a military up again to go to war just because their foriegn policy needs to be defended.

We are seeing this happening again there's a slow build up again in Germany and in some parts of Europe why because the Russians are starting to see how far they can go before we say something. We seen it in the Ukraine nothing was done we seen it in Georgia and nothing was done. So now they want to try Poland but of course they are a NATO Ally so we have no choice but to step up. The military is just nothing but a tool and that's all that they are there for to prevent Rich men from losing their interest whether it's gold, oil, rich minerals the US military will always be used to protect those interests. Mark my words gentleman China is the biggest consumer of all these things. They use 10 times more than what the world uses and There will be a point in time where we will have to face them just for natural resources that will be vital to the United States interests that I can guarantee you.

Response by SSG Diane R. made Jul 30 at 2017 1:04 PM

SSG Diane R. — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 13:04:16 -0400

The civilian leadership, by law and tradition, makes policy. We can advice, only to have our knowledge and experience ignored. Some administrationso ate more reckless than others.

Response by SGT Peter Hayes made Jul 30 at 2017 1:34 PM

SGT Peter Hayes — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 13:34:18 -0400

The U.S. Military does not and should not make any foreign policy. HOW EVER they should have a roll in enforce that policy set forth by POTUS and the congress and the State Department

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Jul 30 at 2017 2:23 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:23:19 -0400

The President is the one who establishes our foreign policy but Congress must provide the financial support where it is needed to implement the policy. The military is an important element in our foreign policy as they will be deployed in foreign countries across the world. Also the military should have some input as to what is needed to respond to issues which surface what seems to be on a daily basis.

Response by SGT Brent Scott made Jul 30 at 2017 6:14 PM

SGT Brent Scott — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:14:06 -0400

America needs to stay out of foreign policy and affairs, we are always supporting and running to everyone's aid, we need to pull out of all the countries and return home, we need to worry about us and only us. We are the super power, we need to strengthen our military at home and let other countries fix their own issues

Response by PFC Eric Parrish made Jul 31 at 2017 11:17 AM

PFC Eric Parrish — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:17:27 -0400

Our military is quite simply the stick. When you use the stick and carrot approach, it helps to have a big stick. We have one hell of a stick in US military power and prowess. All but the lunatics will choose to negotiate before facing the us military.

Response by Sgt David Sowder made Aug 6 at 2017 1:08 PM

Sgt David Sowder — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 13:08:50 -0400

With USMC generals we will be protected under Donald

Response by CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw made Aug 10 at 2017 9:49 PM

CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:49:55 -0400

COL., the POTUS, as the Commander In Chief of our Military, is vital. If any POTUS can't work in conjunction with our Joint Chiefs of Staffs, various Service Secretaries, Secretary of Defense, etc..., our Missions and duties as a Military Force would be restricted to the point of being ineffective against any force both Foreign and Domestic. We've had enough Political Actions or Conflicts motivated and controlled by Politicians and all Veterans know what results come from that!!! When our Men and Women are Sworn in to the Various Services and asked to commit their lives for this Country even at the cost of their own lives, it should be for a purpose. Our Veterans Follow Orders!!! The Orders they receive should be of the upmost importance for our National Security!!! Our Military and Service Members do not need their hands tied behind ridiculous Rules of Engagements that on the US Honors. Arm our Military with the Best Weapons Available and let them be led by the Most Qualified Military Leadership Available from the POTUS and/or his Advisors, if they haven't served before, to the individual Squad, Company, or Special Units on the Point of the Spear our Congress places them on!!! Just my humble opinion Sir!!! Doc Bradshaw