# Obama, like Bush, ignores military recommendations **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2015, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881 "2015-10-17T06:04:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/41 "2015-10-22T14:44:26Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > No, I don’t have to listen to what he says. I can change my policy directives. If MacArthur says the only way we can defend the Korean peninsula from the horrors of communism is to nuke China, then I guess the Korean peninsula is fucked. Peace out. > > What’s stupid is ignoring his recommendation and telling him that he can do the job by some other means, with fewer troops or less powerful weapons. That’s stupid, I’m not a military general. Where am I getting my ideas from? My ass? Wishful thinking? > > But presidents do it over and over because they want to eat their cake and have it to. > > If the CENTCOM commanders say we need 10,000 troops to accomplish whatever it is we’re trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, then Obama’s choices are to give them 10,000 troops, get the hell out of Afghanistan, or give them a more reasonable objective and ask what they need to accomplish _that_. If he has a number in mind, say, 5500 troops, then he needs to go back and forth with the generals until they can agree on what’s possible to accomplish with that number. That’s not the way things work in the military. You get your orders, and you carry them out. Obama says do “X” with 10,000 troops, you do “X” with 10,000 troops. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/42 "2015-10-22T14:47:50Z")
Okay, so as President, you think that your decision should be between: (1) what a general recommends and (2) total surrender. That’s a terrible idea on its face. And what do you do if the generals recommend against withdrawal? The whole reason that the Constitution, and virtually all modern governments, put a civilian as the ultimate head of the armed forces is because the civilian is supposed to represent the interests of the whole country, not just the military establishment, including the country’s relations with other countries. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the generals wanted to have 10,000 troops at seven bases around Afghanistan. And let’s say the State Department is saying that the Afghan Government wants a smaller footprint and will accept no more than five bases. As President, do you suppose your choice is between accepting the generals’ recommendation and pissing off a foreign government, or total withdrawal against the wishes of the generals, the State Department, and the Afghan government? You think this is a better way to be president, why? Let me make my stance clear: if a President decides to go against any adviser’s expert recommendation, he does so at his own risk, but he is also the boss. No organization functions if the boss isn’t allowed to question or modify the recommendations of his subordinates. If the President chooses poorly, he faces the consequences. He might lose his next election, or he may end up retiring in disgrace if the situation is that bad. But to suggest that the President is limited to binary judgments – my way or the highway – is a foolish, short-sighted, and catastrophically bad way of running any organization, especially a country. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/43 "2015-10-22T14:56:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not the way things work in the military. You get your orders, and you carry them out. Obama says do “X” with 10,000 troops, you do “X” with 10,000 troops. If the military worked _that_ way they’d never lose a soldier. “Conquer Germany without a single casualty, that’s an order.” The orders have to be reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/44 "2015-10-22T14:57:31Z")
Generals and military experts can disagree. Unless someone has evidence that Obama took no advice from any general (or former general or other career military expert) that favored the current course of action, then such criticism doesn’t hold water, in my view. Not that I favor the 5,500 or so troops remaining. It’s probably for political reasons, and I think we should be out for good. Hopefully we will be soon. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/45 "2015-10-22T15:02:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, so as President, you think that your decision should be between: (1) what a general recommends and (2) total surrender. > > That’s a terrible idea on its face. And what do you do if the generals recommend against withdrawal? Then you go back and forth until you agree on something. The generals need to agree that what you’re giving them is enough to accomplish their goals. If not, then you’re just setting them up for failure. That doesn’t mean you need to give them everything they ask for at the beginning, but when the final order is signed they should have the means to accomplish that order. The whole reason that the Constitution, and virtually all modern governments, put a civilian as the ultimate head of the armed forces is because the civilian is supposed to represent the interests of the whole country, not just the military establishment, including the country’s relations with other countries. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the generals wanted to have 10,000 troops at seven bases around Afghanistan. And let’s say the State Department is saying that the Afghan Government wants a smaller footprint and will accept no more than five bases. As President, do you suppose your choice is between accepting the generals’ recommendation and pissing off a foreign government, or total withdrawal against the wishes of the generals, the State Department, and the Afghan government? You think this is a better way to be president, why? [/quote] I think the president often has to make a bunch of shit choices. I wouldn’t want to be president for that reason. But… > [@Ravenman](#): > > Let me make my stance clear: if a President decides to go against any adviser’s expert recommendation, he does so at his own risk, but he is also the boss. No organization functions if the boss isn’t allowed to question or modify the recommendations of his subordinates. > > If the President chooses poorly, he faces the consequences. He might lose his next election, or he may end up retiring in disgrace if the situation is that bad. But to suggest that the President is limited to binary judgments – my way or the highway – is a foolish, short-sighted, and catastrophically bad way of running any organization, especially a country. If the president chooses poorly he’s not the only one to face consequences. There are actual people over there in harms way who also have to suffer the consequences. Look, obviously I don’t feel that there’s no room for nuance here. The president doesn’t have binary choices. You said that I’d have to follow orders to nuke China based on my previous post, I’m saying I wouldn’t have to, because another choice would be not to get involved in the first place. Nowhere did I say those were the only two choices, though. Let’s be reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/46 "2015-10-22T15:02:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Liberals are generally for a smaller military force. We’re distrustful of our military. We’re the ones who have been trying to decrease the numbers deployed in the area. > > Bush was criticized for not realizing he couldn’t accomplish his objectives. He was criticized for making a really boneheaded decision to go to Iraq. But I’ve never seen him criticized for sending _too few_ soldiers except by the right. I remember him getting roundly criticized from the left - hell, from me, IIRC - for trying to win Iraq on the cheap with respect to manpower, once we were there and it became clear that it wasn’t going to be easy. In fact, there was a lot of talk on the left ~2004 that Bush was going to need to reinstitute the draft in order to keep Iraq from going to hell in a handbasket. The idea, I’m sure, was that (a) he really would need to go to a draft if he wanted enough troop strength in country to do the job, but (b) America wasn’t going to go along with a draft, so (c) he’d have to pull the plug on his Iraq misadventure. Instead, troop strength was maintained by a pile of tricks, but it still wasn’t enough. Not sure there was an ‘enough,’ but that’s another story. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/47 "2015-10-22T15:04:32Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > If the military worked _that_ way they’d never lose a soldier. “Conquer Germany without a single casualty, that’s an order.” Oh, please. You get your orders, and you carry them out to the best of your ability unless they are unlawful orders. If you’re high enough up, you resign if you don’t think you can. There is nothing unlawful about Obama’s orders. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/48 "2015-10-22T15:08:17Z")
If Generals don’t believe the orders their given are possible, they can and should resign. Generals resigning in protest has a history behind it, and if generals are not resigning in protest due to current orders, then that means that they believe the orders are reasonable and possible, in general. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/49 "2015-10-22T15:15:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not the way things work in the military. You get your orders, and you carry them out. Obama says do “X” with 10,000 troops, you do “X” with 10,000 troops. I don’t know what Hollywood military you went to, but this is absolutely not the way it works. This style of leadership was recognized as disastrous all the way back in the Crimean War. I have never once observed a military planning session in which the commander issued his plan without first considering the requirements of the mission and the resources subordinate leaders required to achieve those goals. Anyone who does attempt this is an incompetent leader and probably on a short road to failure. I also cannot conceive of why someone would consult a subject matter expert (whether it is a lawyer, doctor, or general) and if they thought their advice was worthless. The entire point of hiring an SME is that their knowledge of the subject is superior to your own. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/50 "2015-10-22T15:20:11Z")
I may have to rethink my negative opinion of the _Washington Times_, they appear to have a total scoop on this story! Unless, of course, they are full of shit? Mmmm. Might be best to wait a tick… ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/51 "2015-10-22T15:48:31Z")
> [@FairyChatMom](#): > > I spent 37 years as part of the DOD, both military and civilian. Like any other organization, the military considers itself to be of ultimate importance, plus it wants as big a piece of the budgetary pie as it can get, just like everyone else. So while, for the most part, military people are conservative, they’re not going to be conservative in what they request. And, at least from my experience, some are just bat-shit crazy in assuming that the whole rest of the world is evil and must be subjugated. > > As a result, they’ll ask for more than they really want, knowing full well someone higher up will cut their request. It’s how the game is played. I’m just a tad cynical, but in this, I’m pretty sure I’m on target. I’d agree with that, but at the same time in some respects the military tends to have a decent handle on how many guys/planes/tanks/dogs/porn mags it \*needs \*to accomplish a given task with any kind of success. In Iraq they warned Bush that to both fight the war and occupy the country successfully and without taking too many losses they’d need at least three times as many troops as were sent IIRC. Since the troops weren’t there, they couldn’t lock down the country post-invasion which means US troops had to basically batten the hatches on their bases, run the occasional patrol to pretend like they gave a shit/Did Something but ultimately let the country devolve into a civil-warry insurgent fuck-fest with the occasional mortar lobbed their way. Maybe that’s just post-hoc rationalization on the part of the military to explain away the abject failure, but still. I guess the salient question is : what does Obama hope to accomplish in Afghanistan with five thousand grunts ? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/52 "2015-10-22T15:48:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, please. You get your orders, and you carry them out to the best of your ability unless they are unlawful orders. If you’re high enough up, you resign if you don’t think you can. > > There is nothing unlawful about Obama’s orders. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If Generals don’t believe the orders their given are possible, they can and should resign. Generals resigning in protest has a history behind it, and if generals are not resigning in protest due to current orders, then that means that they believe the orders are reasonable and possible, in general. I can agree with this. I think they should probably resign. That would eliminate any notion that this is political grandstanding, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/53 "2015-10-22T15:53:34Z")
Maybe they aren’t so arrogant to think that they expect the elected leader of the United States must approve their requests without question. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/54 "2015-10-22T15:54:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I guess the salient question is : what does Obama hope to accomplish in Afghanistan with five thousand grunts ? It is to continue training the Afghan security forces and have a limited counterterrorism capability. U.S. ground combat operations are over. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/55 "2015-10-22T16:11:28Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I can agree with this. I think they should probably resign. That would eliminate any notion that this is political grandstanding, at least. They can. That they aren’t indicates that they’re at least willing to go along with the current orders and plans. Generals are Admirals are, by and large, decent and honorable people who would resign if they believe that their orders are unacceptable in some way. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/56 "2015-10-22T17:23:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They can. That they aren’t indicates that they’re at least willing to go along with the current orders and plans. > > Generals are Admirals are, by and large, decent and honorable people who would resign if they believe that their orders are unacceptable in some way. Except there is virtually no recent history of American Flag Officers resigning in protest. The last time that I know it’s happened was in 1949 during the so called “revolt of the Admirals.” I’d bet it’s happened since but I can’t remember it and there is no culture of that in the American military. What will happen is the COCOM will go back to CJCS and tell him what he thinks the 5,000 will buy the President, and what it won’t, and then he’ll carry on as best he can. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/57 "2015-10-22T22:19:03Z")
Also remember that one of the reasons that Bush was criticized in regards to Iraq is that we ostensibly went in there to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists…And, then we apparently didn’t even have enough troops to guard important weapons facilities from being looted by anybody who had a pickup truck! It seemed to be a strategy roughly on par with invading, grabbing all the WMD’s we could find, and then mailing them to the terrorists with the hope that they got lost in the mail. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/58 "2015-10-22T22:39:27Z")
I’d like to remind everyone that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/59 "2015-10-22T23:04:28Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > All presidents should ignore military recommendations. This. The military \*recommends \*what is good for it, which has fuck all to do with anything else. I give them the same eye roll I give our “business leaders” who predictably protest any new tax or regulation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881/60 "2015-10-22T23:32:17Z")
Actually, the top military guys are generally reluctant to go to war, no pun intended. I have it on good authority that war is hell. It’s the civilians who are more likely to be trigger happy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-like-bush-ignores-military-recommendations/734881.md?page=4)