1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

How Is the President Qualified for Commander in Chief?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Tree-Mac, May 6, 2008.

Tags:
  1. Tree-Mac

    Tree-Mac Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    14
    Just because a guy becomes President, he suddenly has power over the whole military, over guys who have been in uniform for decades. Not just him, but all those secretaries of war and service branches are all civilians. So no admiral or general has enough knowledge to govern 3 million people? And what was Bush thinking to make Powell (ex top Army general) a Secretary of State instead of Secretary of War? :confused: Wearing the wrong shoes maybe? Good job Rumsfeld.

    I know it's written in the Constitution, but doesn't that stem from Washington being a general and then President? This is not the 1700's anymore.

    At the very least make the Secretary of War a military veteran. :rolleyes:
     
    #1 Tree-Mac, May 6, 2008
  2. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,256
    Likes Received:
    15,504
    There hasn't been a 'Secretary of War' since the end of WWII.
     
    #2 Ottomaton, May 6, 2008
  3. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Sidenote: It's interesting to me that when we had a Secretary of War, we used our armed forces for defense. Now that we have a Secretary of Defense, we have perpetually used our armed forces for war.

    To the OP: Throughout history, it is pretty well consistent that the chief executive (chief, king, president, emperor) has command of the armed forces. Whether that person is a war hero, a draft dodger, or defended Atlanta from the Commies, if they gain control of the executive, they have control of the armed forces.
     
    #3 weslinder, May 6, 2008
  4. Zac D

    Zac D Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    46
    Civilian command of the military is a pretty well-established and generally intentional principle...
     
    #4 Zac D, May 6, 2008
  5. pirc1

    pirc1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,139
    Likes Received:
    1,884
    The president doesn't need to know everything. He just need to make good decisions based on the advise he receives from his aids.

    How could anyone possibly be an expert in all fields? The trick is to have good competent people around you that give you good idea and know when to listen to them.
     
    #5 pirc1, May 6, 2008
  6. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,111
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    You should watch the John Adams mini series if you are seriously interested in this. The commander in chief episide is pretty hilarious
     
    #6 Bandwagoner, May 6, 2008
  7. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    18,407
    #7 Rashmon, May 6, 2008
  8. Tree-Mac

    Tree-Mac Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    14
    Who's the head of Britian? The Queen or the Prime Minister? Of course the Prime Minister. The Queen is only a title.

    Vietnam had a King who gave his general full military power and that general was able to defeat the Mongolian invasions 3 times. Tran Hung Dao was his name.

    Rulers back in ancient time who created dynasties or empires in many countries were battle tested people. Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar are good examples.
     
    #8 Tree-Mac, May 6, 2008
  9. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,879
    Likes Received:
    3,746
    sheeesh

    they wear a flag lapel pin
     
    #9 pgabriel, May 6, 2008
  10. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    18,407
    What if they are really good at chess? Or Risk?

    Would that count?
     
    #10 Rashmon, May 6, 2008
  11. lpbman

    lpbman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    816
    Bad example
    Alexander the Great wasn't battle tested when his father died. He wasn't completely green, and showed signs of greatness... but a battle tested veteran he was not.

    He took the throne because of birthright not prodigy. He was the greatest military leader/strategist to ever live, irrespective of how he came to power.
     
    #11 lpbman, May 6, 2008
  12. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,263
    Likes Received:
    10,550
    Which is why we have civilian control over the military written into our Constitution.

    The founders were much more concerned about the dangers presented by a charismatic leader at the head of the army than they were with emulating the empire... thankfully, they much preferred the Republic.

     
    #12 rimrocker, May 6, 2008
  13. u851662

    u851662 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    0
    BINGO... He must wear an American Flag Lapel pin too! Let me add, ITS A MUST!!!!

    Correction: The lapel pin gives presidents powers to know ALL!!!!
     
    #13 u851662, May 6, 2008
  14. Tree-Mac

    Tree-Mac Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    14
    Yes it's true the President doesn't have to know anything, but he does not have to take advise from the military experts. That's the problem. He can do wtf he wants and fire whoever disagrees with him. Also, the Secretary of Offense and those other secretaries are all civilians. All of these men outrank any military officer. And all of these men were handpicked by the President. So how much power do you think the military officers have? How can they reach their full effectiveness if there are a bunch of non experts running the show?

    Can you imagine Les Alexander and Morey sitting on the bench coaching with Adelman? :confused:

    ibpman,
    Alexander did not inherit that huge empire that ran all the way to central Asia. He won it. I saw on the History Channel that when he was only a teen, he took his dad's army and crushed some rebellions.

    rimrocker,
    Yes I know we have a republic. This is why Congress holds all the money. No military can function without money. So I think this is a strong show of civilian power over the military already. But to interfere with their work too only hinders progress. Here is my analogy: Leslie Alexander supports the Rockets financially. But it's up to Rick Adelman, his staff, and the players to win games. Adelman doesn't have to ask Les how he should coach the team.
     
    #14 Tree-Mac, May 6, 2008
  15. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,263
    Likes Received:
    10,550
    The President was never intended to mess with tactics. The President should set the strategy and let the generals figure out the tactics.

    You could argue quite persuasively that when a president or an administration does get into the weeds of tactics or can't distinguish between strategy and tactics, that failure has quickly followed.

    Both Lincoln and FDR set the strategy and then went out and found people capable of implementing that strategy.
     
    #15 rimrocker, May 6, 2008
  16. Tree-Mac

    Tree-Mac Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    14
    You're right. But the President being the Commander in Chief, who says he can't mess with tactics? I read somewhere that Lincoln did. He saw that his generals mostly sucked so he studied military books and actually was very much involved in battles (though he was not actually on the battlefield). Another one was Madison. I think he was on the battlefield. He had to retreat because the British burned the White House.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no historian.

    My point is, the President has way too much military power. Governments back then, Kings usually had no business in military decisions. They just let their officers do the work for them.
     
    #16 Tree-Mac, May 6, 2008
  17. lpbman

    lpbman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    816

    He inherited the army that conquered the world. It's hard to make a case he was much of a political leader in the modern sense. If you resisted, you were made an example out of and slaughtered in defeat. Alexander is a great role model for taking over the world, but politically irrelevant in the 21st century.

    The problem with military control of the military is one to do with hammers. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

    Also, I'm sort of struggling with the point of the thread.
     
    #17 lpbman, May 6, 2008
  18. halfbreed

    halfbreed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    26
    I used to be pretty badass at Civ IV.
     
    #18 halfbreed, May 6, 2008
  19. meh

    meh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    16,223
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    I'm surprised this is even an issue with someone, considering how many military coups happen all the time.

    Placing a military figure in command of a country is recipe for dictatorship.
     
    #19 meh, May 6, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page