Posted on Jun 29, 2016
Does our system of Civilian Leadership over the military work for us or again us when it comes to winning wars?
16.2K
133
76
16
16
0
Has our system of Civilian Leadership over the military worked for us or again us when it comes to winning wars?
I want to make it clear that I'm not proposing in this question to eliminate the civilian leadership. It is paramount to our government system, but what has it cost us in lack of leadership or the lack of experience to effectively win wars in the past, now, or in the future. Maybe our Civilian Leadership on the military side of the house should attend a War College for Civilians prior to taking their position, like Commanders going to Pre-Command Course or the Army War College!
Take a look at history and when did the civilian leadership hinder or help out the situation in a war?
Let's start with WWI and WWII.
Take a look at Vietnam and the Civilian Leadership.
How about Iraq and Afghanistan?
How about our current wars?
I want to make it clear that I'm not proposing in this question to eliminate the civilian leadership. It is paramount to our government system, but what has it cost us in lack of leadership or the lack of experience to effectively win wars in the past, now, or in the future. Maybe our Civilian Leadership on the military side of the house should attend a War College for Civilians prior to taking their position, like Commanders going to Pre-Command Course or the Army War College!
Take a look at history and when did the civilian leadership hinder or help out the situation in a war?
Let's start with WWI and WWII.
Take a look at Vietnam and the Civilian Leadership.
How about Iraq and Afghanistan?
How about our current wars?
Leadership
Office of the President (POTUS)
SECDEF
Branch
Government
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 42
10
10
0
I don't think the framework of our system is the issue. It's what are the civilian leadership's agendas.
(10)
(0)
The alternative to having a "Civilian Leadership over the military" is to have "Military Leadership over the Civilians" -- that simply doesn't make any sense. How would that work? Would the military be in charge of our President? Either the country is a political republic or it's run by the military. There's therefore no practical way to answer the question "when it comes to winning wars" because one can't separate that from all other actions (besides, we're basically continuously at war). So therefore the question becomes "should the US Government be controlled by our elected officials or by the military", as the only question one can really address, and clearly an elected government is preferred.
(8)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC Yinon Weiss - Except for exigent circumstances, like non-combatant evacuation operations, the President can only commit military forces after a Congressional Declaration of War, or under the provisions of the War Powers Act. In both cases, congressional approval in some form is required. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama have "side stepped" some provisions of the War Powers Act, but have been eventually found substantially compliant.
I believe that our senior military leadership is well aware of those constraints, and that unauthorized "actions" particularly actions leading to the "deaths of millions" would lack legal authority and would constitute war crimes. As such the President could not shield them from those consequences.
Without specific details, I believe the "...war without cause and lead[ing] to the deaths of millions of Americans for no good reason" scenario you put forward is not possible without complete overthrow of the government. In which case impeachment may be justified, but is unlikely.
I believe that our senior military leadership is well aware of those constraints, and that unauthorized "actions" particularly actions leading to the "deaths of millions" would lack legal authority and would constitute war crimes. As such the President could not shield them from those consequences.
Without specific details, I believe the "...war without cause and lead[ing] to the deaths of millions of Americans for no good reason" scenario you put forward is not possible without complete overthrow of the government. In which case impeachment may be justified, but is unlikely.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
Maj John Bell - As I'm sure you know, war has not been declared by Congress since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). They may have passed resolutions giving the President authority to make a decision, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a side step. Congress has effectively relinquished that power, and it has unfortunately been taken by the Executive Branch. Perhaps not on paper, but in practice.
My whole point is that should the President take egregious actions that hurt our national interest, it is not inconceivable that the President would be impeached... especially if Congress is controlled by the opposite party. If the Republicans had 67 Senators when Bill Clinton was impeached for a far lesser crime, who knows what would have happened.
My whole point is that should the President take egregious actions that hurt our national interest, it is not inconceivable that the President would be impeached... especially if Congress is controlled by the opposite party. If the Republicans had 67 Senators when Bill Clinton was impeached for a far lesser crime, who knows what would have happened.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC Yinon Weiss - None-the-less, President Clinton's impeachment was based on criminal acts, perjury and obstruction of justice.
I agree with you. I believe the War Powers Act is an abdication of legislative power. I whole heartedly support its repeal. But I maintain that impeachment is not constitutionally justified and/or legal because the President does a crappy but legal job.
I agree with you. I believe the War Powers Act is an abdication of legislative power. I whole heartedly support its repeal. But I maintain that impeachment is not constitutionally justified and/or legal because the President does a crappy but legal job.
(1)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
But those elected officials that have the power to send troops into harms way should be required to have worn the uniform. No one that thought that they were too good serve, like the last 2 Democrats and the most recent Republican past president as well as the current POTUS, or that just did not have the balls to serve (Yes, I am saying that the current POTUS did not have the balls to serve) should be allowed to send the brave and bold to do something that they did not have the guts to do.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
The founding fathers of this nation debated the structure of government for many months before settling on a representative republic [non-monarchy] which would be served by three equal and necessary branches of government COL Mikel J. Burroughs; executive, judicial, and legislative.
When our civilian elected leaders discount sound military advice lives tend to be lost and sometimes dire national consequences have resulted in this history of this nation.
Over the centuries we have had many Presidents who served in the military and in combat. Many of the 19th century Presidents fought in the Indian war and Civil War. Some of the best Presidents like Abraham Lincoln had no military experience - yet he led the nation while experiencing great personal loss.
In the 20th century the role of the Executive branch became more prominent under FDR when he expanded the role of government in so many areas.
Eisenhower was the last President who was a senior military leader. After that we have had Presidents with some military experience but none who rose to high levels in the military. I think that history will show that in many cases those who had military experience had more respect going in for the military than those who didn't: JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all had some military experience. Clinton and Obama had no military experience prior to becoming POTUS. In both cases those administrations initially showed disrespect to the military in part because it was alien to the staff members form the culture they brought to the White House.
When our civilian elected leaders discount sound military advice lives tend to be lost and sometimes dire national consequences have resulted in this history of this nation.
Over the centuries we have had many Presidents who served in the military and in combat. Many of the 19th century Presidents fought in the Indian war and Civil War. Some of the best Presidents like Abraham Lincoln had no military experience - yet he led the nation while experiencing great personal loss.
In the 20th century the role of the Executive branch became more prominent under FDR when he expanded the role of government in so many areas.
Eisenhower was the last President who was a senior military leader. After that we have had Presidents with some military experience but none who rose to high levels in the military. I think that history will show that in many cases those who had military experience had more respect going in for the military than those who didn't: JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all had some military experience. Clinton and Obama had no military experience prior to becoming POTUS. In both cases those administrations initially showed disrespect to the military in part because it was alien to the staff members form the culture they brought to the White House.
(7)
(0)
SFC Richard Giles
Your last sentence says a lot LTC Ford. The current administration has no respect for the military at all because they feel they have no need to serve. So walls started being put up 8 years ago and as a whole the military is ignored.
(2)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
SFC Richard Giles - LTC Stephen F. It should be a requirement to serve honorably to hold an office that has the authority to deploy troops.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google