Does our system of Civilian Leadership over the military work for us or again us when it comes to winning wars?

2016-06-29T12:46:24-04:00

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?

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 29 at 2016 12:49 PM

2016-06-29T12:49:48-04:00

I'm sticking my neck out on this one, but I'm going to say against. Only my opinion.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 29 at 2016 12:51 PM

2016-06-29T12:51:45-04:00

Considering that the military is a tool of political policy, yes. Does the political establishment make it more difficult sometimes? Absolutely, but it doesn't matter. The military is a tool of the politicians, not the other way around. Regardless of what one thinks about civilian control of the military, that was put in place quite intentionally because the founders were afraid that the military would take over.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jun 29 at 2016 12:56 PM

2016-06-29T12:56:44-04:00

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.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 1:09 PM

2016-06-29T13:09:12-04:00

It depends who's side your on.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 1:18 PM

2016-06-29T13:18:24-04:00

Wars are fought to achieve political outcomes. What happens on the battlefield is for naught if we don't end up with the political situation we went to war over. The military is just one piece of national power used to achieve political objectives.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jun 29 at 2016 1:34 PM

2016-06-29T13:34:10-04:00

IMO civilian control of the military is essential to the preservation of our democracy in a republic. It's a major factor in the smooth transition of national power we see every 4 or 8 years. Our military is loyal to the constitution and the office of the President, but not to the person of a President. I served under Presidents I voted for and against, but my dedication to the nation never faltered. I think it's that way for most military members.

How has it worked? Probably not as well since WWII as we might have liked. WWI and WWII were global conflicts conducted before the information age. The civilian population generally knew what they read in the newspaper or heard on the radio. Reports of major battles, won or lost, came to the citizens a few days to weeks after the event. The US came "late to the party" in WWI after a long period of trying to stay out of the conflict. Events and changing politics forced the US into WWI. Our total contribution in terms of human lives and resources was less than the European nations, but still significant. We emerged a world power. WWII was as close to total war as history records. The US again tried to stay out of Europe's problems, but a Japanese miscalculation brought us into the war. I've been reading Churchill's books on WWII and it appears that civilian leadership set strategic direction, such as winning in Europe first, and left the military planning and execution largely to the military. Churchill did dabble in parts of the UK military structure that interested him, such as aircraft R&D, but he generally provided strategic direction and tracked its success or failure. Roosevelt appeared to do about the same. I've read Eisenhower, Patton, Spatz, and MacArthur biographies and I don't see excessive interference from the civilian side of government in their execution of the President's agreements and orders.

Post WWII globalism and the growth of information changed things. Korea was a crossover from providing information at the speed of newsprint to information at the speed of light. Also, because no war since WWII was constitutionally declared, they were easily politicized. Starting with Korea, the US failed to clearly define "victory" and commit to winning it. We ended up in a political settlement in Korea that suited the globalists in the UN. In Vietnam, the civilian (political) meddling in the execution of strategy became excessive. The White House picked bombing targets in North Vietnam, for example. Vietnam also was the first US conflict to come into the citizen's home in the form of TV along with the commentary of civilian journalists. Victory was never defined. Consequently the US forces never lost a major battle with North Vietnamese forces, but Communist forces conquered the South. The political establishment was able to call it a victory because US land forces had pulled out of Vietnam before the fall of Saigon. It also established a pattern of US involvement that persists today. The US will fight until the liberal media and politicians convince the citizens that it's time to pull out. Declare victory and move on has become the strategy.

Our current position in the world is the result of civilian leadership ignoring the good advice of military leaders. George HW Bush ignored the military leadership and stopped DESERT STORM when a victory on the ground deposing Sadam was within reach. President Obama withdrew all troops from Iraq guaranteeing a collapse of the Government and the rise of ISIS because he didn't think Iraq was a "good war." The civilian leadership appears to think the conflict in Afghanistan has gone on long enough. It looks like it's becoming a political liability. They will ignore the advice of military leaders and lead the US out of Afghanistan in the near future. Again we will have left and lost.

The solution to the problem is electing a different type of civilian leader. We need to elect leaders who think strategically, listen to their military advisers, issue orders at the strategic level, and track results making changes as needed. In doing this, they need to put America first, not their re-election or legacy.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 2:24 PM

2016-06-29T14:24:55-04:00

I think the question for the United States would be: " Has Goldwater Nichols run it course?"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 2:33 PM

2016-06-29T14:33:04-04:00

Your question reminds me of Starship Troopers where in order to vote or serve in office you must have served in the military.

Our system of civilian leadership is not designed to maximize our chances of winning war, it's designed to preserve government that represents the people. Burma/Myanmar on the other hand, has a Stratocracy where the military controls the government.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 29 at 2016 2:57 PM

2016-06-29T14:57:39-04:00

I don't think the framework of our system is the issue. It's what are the civilian leadership's agendas.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Jun 29 at 2016 3:25 PM

2016-06-29T15:25:07-04:00

In my opinion, civilian leadership should outline the objectives and then hand it to the military leadership to plan, fight and win. One of the worst things that American politicians do, is imbed news media in the front lines. Most of our citizenry have never been engaged in combat and have little stomach for what is required to win. Protracted police actions quickly lose the support of the American people and then politicians begin to worry about reelection. Vietnam as well as other conflicts become a quagmire without a desire to win. Either you take necessary action to destroy the enemy's will and ability to fight or don't go. Politicians want to hold the leash on the tiger until it appears that the tiger is taking larger steps....
My dad had a boss whose son served in Vietnam. His wingman was shot down by an antiaircraft emplacement in the DMZ so turned around and dropped remaining ordnance on the site. He was court martialed for bombing people in the DMZ. FIGHT to win or don't get started. Just an old guy's opinion.

Response by SPC John Lebiecki made Jun 29 at 2016 3:50 PM

2016-06-29T15:50:51-04:00

This is a VERY hard question to answer. This can go easily two ways.

In my opinion, I believe the civilian leadership has used our service members, veterans and their families as pawns. Government shutdowns (because of budget approvals due to others' agendas) have threatened paychecks to the Active Duty, payments of pensions and disability to veterans who can no longer work and therefore have to worry about how they are going to sustain. Every single time there is an issue in congress, the first ones seem to be impacted: Service members and vets.

In all reality, I feel that civilian leadership controls too much of the military and there needs to be more of a balance to end this.

Where does it end?

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made Jun 29 at 2016 3:50 PM

2016-06-29T15:50:58-04:00

We lost the will to win wars in March 1951, when Truman, Acheson, and Marshall instructed Ridgeway to limit engagement with Chinese and North Korea forces beyond the 38th Parallel during Korea, even though at that point the enemy's capability was severely diminished. Politicians have taken us into dubious foreign engagements over the years, yet at the first sign of intense casualties they either change the ROE or temper tactical progress in order to seek a watered down diplomatic solution. The most pervasive question that should be thoroughly answered before sending forces into the fight is..."What's our national interests and what's the end game?" Panama, Granada, and Gulf War One aside, every other excursion has been micro-managed from the Oval Office extensively and what have we to show for it beyond a colossal waste of blood and treasure! If we are to commit forces to the field then complete victory should be the goal, history has repeated that time and again. Otherwise, we simply have to look forward to the same or similar threat down the road.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 3:54 PM

2016-06-29T15:54:46-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, Depends on who the Leader is Sir.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 29 at 2016 4:11 PM

2016-06-29T16:11:53-04:00

I am a firm believer in the concept of subjugating the military to civilian leadership IF civilian leaders will limit their control to establishing strategic goals. When they begin to meddle in battlefield strategy and tactics they are guilty of hubris of the highest order. Those who believe that military experience will help them better "manage" war need to go back and study their history. Even those with great military experience may make some of the greatest mistakes because everyone thinks they know more than they do. Was Truman a better war leader because he had been a captain of artillery in WWI? No, he did a better job because he limited his control to setting goals and insuring that he had the generals who would focus on them rather than going off the tracks and setting their own agenda (thus, he fired MacArthur). Was Ike a better President because he had been a general? Well, yes, because his wartime service as the allied commander of the ETO had prepared him for politics. However, as the CinC of the Cold War effort, he failed by trying to contain communism rather than defeating its threat. Lincoln had no real experience in war and yet did a masterful job of setting the agenda, one that only he wanted. Most everyone else felt that the South should be allowed to go its own way, even his Cabinet. And Lincoln focused on setting strategic goals and picking generals. I can find no evidence that he interfered in strategy and tactics beyond that.

Response by COL Jonathan Cohen made Jun 29 at 2016 4:56 PM

2016-06-29T16:56:37-04:00

In 1900, every member of Congress was either a Civil or Spanish-American War Veteran. Those numbers have dwindled to nearly nothing and the lack of knowledge of the military and its capabilities has led to misuse of the armed forces over the years. While I believe in Civilian authority and oversight over the military...the Constitution requires it...without the experience to know what context the military should be used as a element of national power (DIME), over the past couple of decades the Civilian Leadership has hindered the military when it comes to winning wars. Just my humble opinion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 5:00 PM

2016-06-29T17:00:25-04:00

Politics will always be politics, ran by civilians.. but the boots on the ground is what wins wars and our Military has proven time and time again that we can win against all odds. But if you look at History, our country was founded by men of action; men who fought to become free. Many were civilians who had no military background. But it was the military and their leadership that won the revolution.. The military put our government in to power.

Response by PO1 Jack Howell made Jun 29 at 2016 5:12 PM

2016-06-29T17:12:06-04:00

Mistakes have been made in every single war that the country fought. In the case of Vietnam, both civilian and military leadership failed because they didn't understand the country as a whole and they didn't understand the people. Another contributing factor was an unfounded fear based on the 'domino theory'. Of course, civilian and military leadership lying to the people didn't help either. The other thing that doomed our involvement in Vietnam is that no one looked at the history of the country. Vietnam has never been conquered by another country (China, France, Japan, and the United States). As for Iraq and Afghanistan, strategy and manning hasn't helped. In the case of Iraq, post-invasion was woefully inadequate to say the least. once the strategy was changed, the situation there greatly improved. However, ALL of the gains from the surge were wiped out when President Obama withdrew our troops. In the case of Afghanistan, I think the biggest problem is that the coalition underestimated the resiliency of the Taliban. I think that one solution to consider is a constitutional amendment that would require the President and the Vice President to have served a minimum of 4 years in the military. The purpose of this would be to give our civilian leadership what the military does and what the effects are when they're ordered into harm's way.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 6:43 PM

2016-06-29T18:43:43-04:00

Sir I'm glad you bring this up. I see big Army is looking to hire NCO s and officers up to your rank off the street just pass basic training and AIT. This tells me that our civilian leadership does not have faith input leaders because this is happening during a time of downsizing . I will be very concerned going to war when I have a 1SG or CSM making decisions without any experience in the military, and this should scare every Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Jun 29 at 2016 10:34 PM

2016-06-29T22:34:07-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - This is a subject that I as well as many could write a book about. So I'm going to cut right to the chase - Looking back at our History I feel that having a POTUS that has had some kind of military back ground is a tremendous plus to this great nation of ours. This is a question that would be good to discuss live with RP members and let the feelings and ideas flow. As I said I could go on and on as this is a great question that all should think and have a view about.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2016 12:14 AM

2016-06-30T00:14:44-04:00

One important thing to consider is that at the time of the founding fathers going to many colleges involved some form of military training in addition to academics as it was considered a proper field of study for gentlemen. This changed in the 20th century with very few schools holding on to this model. It was reasonable at the time for the founding fathers to think the educated men of the country would continue to have war taught as a subject in college but now its only an optional thing rather than what it used to be. It also used to be impossible for a president to have direct command and control over units far off in the field so that was another change that was made over time that significantly changed the relationship between a president and the armed forces. I think it would be best if the politicians decided the objectives but then let the military decide how to fulfill them. Our wars went a lot better when that was the case.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 30 at 2016 7:19 AM

2016-06-30T07:19:19-04:00

Like everything else in our system, it's part of our Oversight Framework.

Direct Military Leadership when it comes to winning wars, offers "no" oversight. "We" (as a group) are very task/mission oriented. We are NOT "politically" oriented. War is Politics through Force.

"If" we are trying to accomplish a Political Goal, we need to have a Politician holding the reins and making the final call. They are the one who will know when the Objective has been completed. Conversely, we don't train our Military to think "politically" from birth-to-grave. We train them to think tactically/operationally/strategically, and THEN to consider the political ramifications. However, our Diplomats/Politicians are approaching it from the opposite side, they approach everything from a Policy standpoint, and then must consider the military ramifications.

But let's simplify it. Within our system, Congress has the Power to declare war (currently using Legislation to Authorize Use of Military Force). The President is the Commander in Chief, and as such wields the Military, and has the ability to END war (pretty much unilaterally).

If we shifted those distinct Powers to military heads... Would we see decreases in Conflict? Would we see Conflict stop earlier? And more specifically would it support the idea of Global Stability?

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jun 30 at 2016 8:30 AM

2016-06-30T08:30:13-04:00

Against us ! We need someone who knows how to kick butt, not grab ass.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jun 30 at 2016 10:36 AM

2016-06-30T10:36:58-04:00

I remember being taught in Marine Corps Boot Camp, that The Marines were the 'Presidents Own ' and that The President didn't need approval from Congress to send in the Marines to take care of business. I have to assume that has now changed ?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 30 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-06-30T13:43:34-04:00

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.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Jun 30 at 2016 7:28 PM

2016-06-30T19:28:22-04:00

Foot in mouth time.. My Opinion Only.. AGAINST.. Congress .
tries to run the war from Arm Chairs 1000's of miles away !! If they declare war they need to shut-up and let the military do the job, or take a $140,000.00 cut in pay, grab a weapon, and join us.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 4 at 2016 10:12 AM

2016-07-04T10:12:55-04:00

Against us in most cases. They lack the courage of their convictions, assuming that they have convictions beyond Party loyalty.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Jul 4 at 2016 7:45 PM

2016-07-04T19:45:24-04:00

Civilian control over the military has over time ensured our liberty. Look at all of the nations that have militaries with a penchant to interfere with the government, even taking power over the country. Egypt & Pakistan are examples. Our rule of law is sustained by keeping the military out of politics.

Response by SPC Karen Ramsey made Jul 5 at 2016 3:53 AM

2016-07-05T03:53:29-04:00

Civilians are making the military PC and soft, go away!

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 5 at 2016 4:42 AM

2016-07-05T04:42:46-04:00

In the time periods you wished to talk about the breakdown is interesting.
WWI Wilson no service.
WWII FDR no service but Navy Sec
WWII/Korea Truman prior service
Vietnam JFK yes, LBJ yes, Nixon yes
Gulf war GHWB yes
Iraq/Afgan GWB yes ( I know people say Air Guard was a dodge, he still served).
The non serving are Bill and Barak. Just say'n...
So did it matter in these conflicts? The outcomes are debatable. The War presidents had service time except Wilson.

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Jul 6 at 2016 2:58 PM

2016-07-06T14:58:11-04:00

Holistically Sir, From my foxhole it has worked against us. I believe that there should be a level of balance between Civilian and Military leadership when it comes to fighting wars. There's that level of pragmatism and "hooah-ness" that should be nested together to make appropriate, timely decisions. A total control by civilians (never served) has a disadvantage in terms of understanding the tactics and strategy necessary to fight the war from a table-top or even white-board perspective (which we have basically seen with the OIF/OIR/OEF debacle. A total control by military has the set-back of potentially having a "blitzkrieg" mentality and then we diminishing returns taking effect in fighting the war(s). That is why I think there needs and should be a equal balance when it comes to that.

Response by CPO Mark Lovelace, CSP made Jul 8 at 2016 11:14 AM

2016-07-08T11:14:02-04:00

What's ailing us is civilian leadership that doesn't have an real understanding of the consequences of waging war.

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Jul 8 at 2016 3:21 PM

2016-07-08T15:21:00-04:00

I think that the civilian leadership and oversight is absolutely important in the way that checks and balances hold people accountable. That having been said, I do not feel that your ability to sustain a victory in the popular vote of a political race should immediately elevate you to being the commander-in-chief of the most elite fighting force on the planet. There should absolutely be an educational element required of senior political officials in the house and senate as well as critical members of the cabinet in the line of succession, a president elect and a vice presidential candidate to explain how warfare is planned and conducted. For God's sake, we require it of our Majors and Lieutenant Colonels to qualify for promotion! Too many times in our history, the stroke of a pen and an agreement among political leadership has resulted in catastrophic blunders for our military. An agreement to protracted warfare and an unwillingness to cross a line on a map has cost us many lives in the past. Do not train for war then tie our military's hands behind its back and say "get to it!" It is our biggest asset in maintaining our freedom. When we have political leaders like our current abomination, we are led by people who have no respect for the tradition and code that a military exists under. When a high ranking general officer is killed in combat and the president is "too busy" to pay proper respect while he jumps on a jet to coddle the family of a criminal that got killed by getting caught up in his own BS, then we are sorely lacking in the leadership department of our civilian political establishment. You should understand the nature of what it is you are overseeing or commanding! Leadership is earned, not garnered by winning a popularity contest. If you are too blinded by you own agenda or too ignorant to understand the magnitude of your actions (or inactions,) then don't aspire to be a leader of a nation as it's public servant rather than a purveyor of your own embellished, misguided political ambition.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jan 3 at 2017 8:44 AM

2017-01-03T08:44:58-05:00

General leads the Army not a civilian politician.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2017 10:00 AM

2017-01-03T10:00:02-05:00

Depends on the civilian leadership.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 3:49 PM

2017-01-05T15:49:53-05:00

Definitely works against us as evidenced by the current president and his disastrous policies in the middle east

Response by SGT Paul Mackay made Jan 11 at 2017 7:37 PM

2017-01-11T19:37:09-05:00

against us.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Jan 12 at 2017 4:44 PM

2017-01-12T16:44:07-05:00

Against, We need Civilian Leadership ... Obviously, we Do NOT have any !!!

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Feb 27 at 2017 4:40 PM

2017-02-27T16:40:53-05:00

Works against US.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Feb 27 at 2017 5:17 PM

2017-02-27T17:17:12-05:00

Civilians are more political and oriented to party positions and future elections for power. War became more political during Korea and has gradually made the concept of winning a victory over adversaries less likely. Vietnam a prime example. Field officers need the authority to make winning decisions without first consulting with lawyers and risking the lives of soldiers before the go order can be given.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 8 at 2017 9:15 AM

2017-08-08T09:15:16-04:00

I'm a 'Nam relic and have Comrades that are younger who are serving now and had served in the early years of these latest happenings in Iraq/Afghanistan and these that are in now can recall who the faithful
towards the recent past President, annoited themselves as the Services watchers/minders to run and tattle about
What they believe were Non p.c. Complying actions.. depending on who they "whined" to if any corrective action were taken to make the sitrep p.c. Compliant even at the risk of their fellow
Troops involved. (The Holder A.G. Years, when they were required to "get a warrant", waste time reading them their rights[actually asking implanted journalists to tattle if an suspected/alleged insurgent's "rights" were or were not read to to them].. and sending legal techs in the field to make sure it was being done at times. Even if it was explained what their rights were, most couldn't comprehend what constitutional rights were.or even meant.
All it did was to muddle even more a running conundrum.. There were insurgents sent during the Bush years to Gitmo and other prisons when it was revealed by civilian lawyers hired by the Obama regime that several had Not had their "rights" read to them were outright released and given close got $10,000 U.S.
for their "inconvenience.. so they take the money, go back to serve their time at a prisoner hostel and they send their $$ to help the "cause". And the "cause" uses the $$ to purchase what they can't steal.

It used to be "whiners/whistleblowers" were givdn one way tickets to Keflavdk or
maybe some other desolate outpost for the remainder of their tour..
Some I know would say; "if you were a whistleblower, put yourself in their shoes/boots, how would you like being sent to Keflavik?".. I know enough to not throw gas on a fire.. even a smouldering one... just walk off and do s'thing s'where else...
( this frichen spell correct, is a clusterflop
s'times. It allegedly thinks it's correcting words it thinks I got wrong. I think it's linked with the keys and is just trying to get me to quit typing so the keys get a break!... ha-ha-ha-LoL!

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Sep 6 at 2021 11:15 PM

2021-09-06T23:15:11-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sir: I believe that LTC Paul Labrador has hit the nail on the head. Liberal politicians have for the past 40 years used the US Military as a Social Laboratory for left-wing pet causes to appeal to their special interest groups, while the Right wing has focused on huge dollar weapon systems, never holding the builders to their original contracts and dollar amounts.
With this being said: I feel with all my heart that NO ONE should be allowed to hold a political office that has the power and authority to send our military into harms way without they themselves having worn the uniform. If the President and Senior Congressional leaders were required to be honorably discharged or Retired veterans, there would be a whole lot less social experimentation or military deployments for questionable reasons.
Yes, I am saying that the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, SECDEF and all the service Secretaries should be required to have been in the service themselves. Each of the Service Secretaries should be required to have served in the service that they represent.
NO ONE should be allowed to be able to send our Service Members into harms way if they themselves did not have the balls to wear a uniform themselves. If the most recent two past presidents and the current POTUS and current Speaker of the House were veterans, the situation we find ourselves in would be a whole lot different.

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made Sep 6 at 2021 11:28 PM

2021-09-06T23:28:16-04:00

When you consider LBJ & McNamara's intrusive management during the Vietnam War (i.e. bombing restrictions over North Vietnam = failure) versus Roosevelt's giving largely a freehand to the Joint Chief's (i.e. Marshall, King, Arnold= success) during World War Two, there seems to be a necessity to have a middle ground. Civilian oversight is fundamental, but when it's contradictory to tactical success from the military commander's POV (i.e. Afghanistan retrograde=massive failure), then the military commander should, in good conscience, resign!