Looking back over the last 50 years, it seems that the nexus of all the US’s military snafus lies in civilian influence in military planning. I know many would argue that but let’s just stick to the issue of solving this one problem. Would any of you consider stripping the President of Commander and Chief status and setting up the military somewhat like the Federal Reserve? Perhaps once the decision to go to war was made, a war commander would take over with an approved budget and time frame and execute the war as he/she see fit. Cabinet members could advise the president over the wisdom of going to war, but the military had complete control over its execution. We’d be much less likely to go to war since a President and the Congress would be reluctant to give someone so much power. There would be far fewer military decisions based on political expedience. I’m thinking of something akin to the granting of a Roman consul the status of Imperator for a year or two.
Um, eek! What a horrible idea.
There are many problems with your idea, KidCharlemagne, but at root you make an artificial distinction between war and politics. War is a political act, including both in its goals and the means by which those goals are attempted to be reached.
A simple example: the Vietnam War was completely winnable - all that the military would have had to do was nuke the entire land mass of North Vietnam. As you may guess, however, such a military decision would have had significant and deleterious political and diplomatic ramifications.
Furthermore, your opinion that US military failures of the past 50 years were as a result of civilian meddling is likely incorrect. In at least the first part of the Korean War, the US political command effectively gave MacArthur carte blanche. The result is that MacArthur ignored the obvious warnings from the PRC not to approach the Yalu, the Chinese intervened, and MacArthur turned what was a decisive (though not complete) victory into a bloody and bitter stalemate.
Sua
Well, the president could give objectives and limits and the military would have to agree it could be done. President could say no nukes, and no more than X casualties. Still probably a bad idea but I wouldnt’ mind hearing why.
I’ll second SuaSponte. Mind-bogglingly horrible plan.
The assignment of the Chief Executive as head of the military was not some random notion of the Founding Fathers, but one of the most deliberate acts in the creation of the office.
Making the military a self-contained entity means that the people with the most firepower have no real check on their actions. The political leaders may call for war, but if the generals simply don’t think it’s in their interests, they won’t go. Similarly, without the knowlege that they derive their powers from the government rather than their own will, they may decide that the government “isn’t working out”, and use their might to take over the country.
History has shown that loss of control over the military is a sure path to dictatorship.
I agree that the OP’s solution is a terrible one. But the problem presented is real, and there is, in fact, a much simpler solution. Congress should take back the authority to declare war given to it in the Constitution and quit abdicating that responsibility to the president.
Ok, Uncle. Forget my solution. What are other practical ways to stop civilians from war planning if you believe that is advisable? John/ In know you already gave one.
Who is “you?” I mean, ostensibly, the president and congress are acting on the will of the people. If thry go to war without a clear majority, they do so at their peril. If a clear majority of the people do think war is what’s needed, then that’s my problem right there.
I oversimplify, but I think you get my point. I do agree that there is a real problem, though, but one can’t set parameters or limits on war. Either you let slip the dogs or you don’t and pols need to know that.