PDA

View Full Version : Who is the Commander in Chief?



pefjr
10-05-2009, 01:35 PM
Obama, Biden, or General Stanley McChrystal?

Vice President Joe Biden has privately proposed narrowing the mission in Afghanistan, concentrating instead on attacking al Qaeda targets that are based primarily in neighboring Pakistan.

General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, last week told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London such a strategy would probably be "shortsighted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091005/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa

peter radclyffe
10-05-2009, 01:39 PM
dont you know yet its Joe, cshoh

Paul Pless
10-05-2009, 02:15 PM
General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, last week told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London such a strategy would probably be "shortsighted.Followed by a come to jesus moment with Obama in Denmark.:eek:

Probably only a matter of weeks until we hear of his resignation.

paladin
10-05-2009, 02:27 PM
and we ain't won a war since the politicians started running them...just wracked up body counts........:mad:

ljb5
10-05-2009, 02:53 PM
Obama is the Commander in Chief.

He can (and should) seek out advice from other people. From time to time, that advice may differ from his own opinions.

Just because he has received conflicting advice does not mean that he is not the Commander in Chief.

Thanks for asking.

George.
10-05-2009, 02:55 PM
War is politics. It is always run by politicians.

pefjr
10-05-2009, 03:08 PM
Obama is the Commander in Chief.

He can (and should) seek out advice from other people. From time to time, that advice may differ from his own opinions.

Just because he has received conflicting advice does not mean that he is not the Commander in Chief.

Thanks for asking.

I wish he would seek/demand the advice/authority/responsibility of Congress. I hope he does not fall into the same mistakes of the last 60 yrs, and then ask Congress for a rubber stamp, because Congress would just as soon he take all responsibility. Another scapegoat. Meanwhile soldiers die daily.

htom
10-05-2009, 03:12 PM
War is politics. It is always run by politicians.

That's backwards, IMAO. Politics is a subset of warfare, and that's why the politicians usually do so poorly at it.

Kaa
10-05-2009, 03:12 PM
I wish he would seek/demand the advice/authority/responsibility of Congress.

How that's going to help with anything..?

Kaa

pefjr
10-05-2009, 03:30 PM
How that's going to help with anything..?

KaaIt would put the responsibility of war-making back on the shoulders the Congress as per the Constitution. Responsibility to the people, which last polls indicate NO to Afghanistan.

pefjr
10-05-2009, 03:33 PM
Considering the behavior of Congress recently, are you sure you want your wish fulfilled?



Better for the President to take responsibility, and let his success/failure be his own responsibility, than to let the responsibility be diffused into a multiplicity of historical re-writes.



I don't recall a lot of concern for soldiers dying daily, during the first few years of the Iraq war.... at least, until the lies about WMD's were finally uncovered.

Yes

That idea has failed for 60 years.

Your recall is "out of order".

Kaa
10-05-2009, 03:34 PM
It would put the responsibility of war-making back on the shoulders the Congress as per the Constitution.

Yes, but why will it help?

Basically, why do you think Congress will make better decisions than presidents?


Responsibility to the people, which last polls indicate NO to Afghanistan.

If you just want the US to get out of Afghanistan, why not say so outright instead of trying the roundabout Congress route?

Besides, you don't really want to run foreign policy on the basis of population polls, do you?

Kaa

pefjr
10-05-2009, 03:46 PM
Yes, but why will it help?

Basically, why do you think Congress will make better decisions than presidents?



If you just want the US to get out of Afghanistan, why not say so outright instead of trying the roundabout Congress route?

Besides, you don't really want to run foreign policy on the basis of population polls, do you?

KaaThe president should make war decisions with Congress. Obviously its better.


I do, I have, but I am a peon.

Population polls? no. Opinion or voting polls, yes

George.
10-05-2009, 03:59 PM
Ever hear of unity of command? Try that in a Congress.

Kaa
10-05-2009, 04:04 PM
The president should make war decisions with Congress. Obviously its better.

I completely fail to see what's obvious about it being better.


Population polls? no. Opinion or voting polls, yes

What's the difference?

And you really want to run foreign policy on the basis of opinion polls..?

Kaa

pefjr
10-05-2009, 04:39 PM
I completely fail to see what's obvious about it being better.



What's the difference?

And you really want to run foreign policy on the basis of opinion polls..?

Kaa
I completely fail to see what's obvious about it being better.

Ask Congress to declare war against Afgh... wait what is it we are fighting... oh OBL... wait is that right?

Kaa its 536 making a war decision where soldiers actually die. And being responsible on the record VS 1 person. This Govt has 3 heads, or did 60 yrs ago.


What's the difference?

If you don't know, ?????

Kaa
10-05-2009, 04:45 PM
I completely fail to see what's obvious about it being better.

Ask Congress to declare war against Afgh... wait what is it we are fighting... oh OBL... wait is that right?

Kaa its 536 making a war decision where soldiers actually die. And being responsible on the record VS 1 person. This Govt has 3 heads, or did 60 yrs ago.

I still completely fail to see what's obvious about it being better.

If you think that will lead to a more isolationist foreign policy, well, you can argue for such a turn but putting the Congress into the loop is a rather convoluted way of achieving the goal.

Otherwise, are you really trying to say that a collection of 536 people will make better decisions??


If you don't know, ?????

Between a population poll and an opinion poll? I use them as synonyms. You don't mean a referendum or a plebiscite, do you?

Kaa

pefjr
10-05-2009, 05:08 PM
If you think that will lead to a more isolationist foreign policy, well, you can argue for such a turn but putting the Congress into the loop is a rather convoluted way of achieving the goal. Kaa

Congress is already in the loop, I don't need to put them there. If looks as if Obama and Congress and 300 million Americans do not know this.
US Constitution Section 8 #11- Congress shall have the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.


Between a population poll and an opinion poll? I use them as synonyms. You don't mean a referendum or a plebiscite, do you?

An election is an the only opinion poll I need.

Kaa
10-05-2009, 08:11 PM
Congress is already in the loop, I don't need to put them there. If looks as if Obama and Congress and 300 million Americans do not know this.
US Constitution Section 8 #11- Congress shall have the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Well, go ahead and enlighten them, then :-)


An election is an the only opinion poll I need.

In this case what are you complaining about? :D

Kaa

ccmanuals
10-05-2009, 08:18 PM
I would love to see Congress pass a law that says basically whenever war is declared then the draft is automatically instated. If we all had skin in the game then maybe the politicians would think twice about engaging in these things.

Tom Montgomery
10-05-2009, 08:21 PM
The Pentagon HATES the idea of a military draft. I learned that from Col. Bob Smalser.

ccmanuals
10-05-2009, 08:24 PM
The Pentagon HATES the idea of a military draft. I learned that from Col. Bob Smalser.

Probably true but they don't get to vote :)

J. Dillon
10-05-2009, 09:04 PM
War is a racket.

Listen to this speech from a USMC Medal of Honor Winner.

Is it true today as it was years ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

JD

Chip-skiff
10-05-2009, 10:05 PM
Random Notes:

When have you ever heard a general ask for fewer troops? Or the Pentagon request less money?

When, in the lengthy history of western intervention in Afghanistan, has an imposed military strategy ever prevailed?

pefjr
10-05-2009, 10:41 PM
Why is it so easy for the US to enter a war and so hard to leave?

purri
10-06-2009, 12:56 AM
due to fast mouth syndrome:p

JimD
10-06-2009, 05:43 AM
Why is it so easy for the US to enter a war and so hard to leave?

Because your population is gullable and self righteous.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2009, 09:09 AM
All the above, plus the fact that the US has not known war since the Civil War. It's always somebody else's home getting torn up.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2009, 09:19 AM
I wish he would seek/demand the advice/authority/responsibility of Congress. I hope he does not fall into the same mistakes of the last 60 yrs, and then ask Congress for a rubber stamp, because Congress would just as soon he take all responsibility. Another scapegoat. Meanwhile soldiers die daily.

Exactly. Congress complains of the insufficiency of their war powers but in their cowardice and narrow self-interest refuses to even try to excercise them. This is a major gray area or blind spot or something in the American system. The decision to go to war should be the most accountable decision the federal government makes and yet it is the least. It just sort of happens. A lot of chest thumping and flag waving; a lot of head scratching and a few feeble, uncertain protests. Meanwhile soldiers die daily.

George.
10-06-2009, 09:29 AM
Guys, declarations of war went out of fashion with pointed helmets and cavalry. They were great back when armies took weeks to muster and more weeks to march to the border.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2009, 02:44 PM
Guys, declarations of war went out of fashion with pointed helmets and cavalry. They were great back when armies took weeks to muster and more weeks to march to the border.

That'll buy you a week. After that, Congress must be considered to have abdicated.

Do I mean they should drop everything and consider a war the President has started until they decide to fund it, not fund it, whatever? Yes.

George.
10-06-2009, 02:48 PM
Not feasible. Wars are notoriously difficult to unstart.

ccmanuals
10-06-2009, 03:13 PM
At least one good thing that Obama is doing that Bush didn't do is to respect the military chain of command. Obama deals with Gates. He shouldn't be dealing directly with the generals or even the service secretaries. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that he was a Captain in the ANG and when he was President he kinda "got off" telling generals what to do.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2009, 06:29 PM
Not feasible. Wars are notoriously difficult to unstart.

It's been done, and in any case, there's no excuse for not trying.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-06-2009, 06:39 PM
9th grade civics again.
Both Biden and McChrystal work for Obama who is the Commander in Chief.
The Congress has th power to DECLARE war. That's it. If they say yes the president as Commander in Chief, runs the show and takes the praise or the hits for what went on.

ccmanuals
10-06-2009, 07:07 PM
9th grade civics again.
Both Biden and McChrystal work for Obama who is the Commander in Chief.
The Congress has th power to DECLARE war. That's it. If they say yes the president as Commander in Chief, runs the show and takes the praise or the hits for what went on.

Nope. McChrystal works for the Chief of Staff of the Army who works for the Secretary of the Army who works for the Secretary of Defense who works for the Commander in Chief.

Osborne Russell
10-06-2009, 08:33 PM
The Congress has th power to DECLARE war. That's it.

They have the authority to make and withdraw appropriations.

LeeG
10-07-2009, 03:21 AM
Because your population is gullable and self righteous.

that and it's on someone elses soil

skuthorp
10-07-2009, 05:40 AM
Meantime in Afghanistan the UN puts it's collective head in the sand.
"The UN's number two official in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, has been fired after a clash with head of mission Kai Eide over how to handle fraud in the recent presidential elections. Galbraith alleges that Eide is covering up massive corruption for reasons of expediency."
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/galbraith-fired-refused-hide-afghanistan-election-fraud

Shooting the messenger won't change the fact that service personnel are dying to support a completely corrupt regime and enforce a completely subsumed 'election'. In some provinces 100,000 more votes than electors are recorded, in others 100,000 votes are missing. Dozens of boxes of ballots were "pre marked" before polling day by the same few hands. Is this worth sacrificing anyone else for?

PeterSibley
10-07-2009, 06:17 AM
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/...election-fraud (http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/galbraith-fired-refused-hide-afghanistan-election-fraud)

It's a scam and a very bad one .The Afghan government has no credibilty at all , neither do those who support it . Time to walk away .

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-07-2009, 11:18 AM
Nope. McChrystal works for the Chief of Staff of the Army who works for the Secretary of the Army who works for the Secretary of Defense who works for the Commander in Chief.

You is preachin to the choir. This is the chain of command back when I went asoldering.
In inverse order, of course.

Watson
Waters
Wheeler
Taylor ( I think this was Maxwell D. Taylor who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which I think is part of the chain of command 'cause the Army wouldn't have made me learn it if it wasn't. How come you skipped around the CoJCS? )

ccmanuals
10-07-2009, 04:58 PM
How come you skipped around the CoJCS?

Chuck, the joint chiefs are not directly in the Chain but function more for joint activities and policy and advisory capacity to Civilian leadership.

htom
10-07-2009, 05:36 PM
The Chain of Command has changed (slightly) since I was a member. Not that anyone even near those levels ever gave me a direct order.

Robmill0605
10-07-2009, 05:43 PM
The Oath of Military Enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

It's pretty clear that like it or not(not) Obama is the CIC. That said, the language says:I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

I will Support and defend the Constitution of the United States,

NOT, support and defend Obama.

then it says: I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Captain Blight
10-07-2009, 08:10 PM
Obama is the Commander in Chief.

He can (and should) seek out advice from other people. From time to time, that advice may differ from his own opinions.

Just because he has received conflicting advice does not mean that he is not the Commander in Chief.

Thanks for asking.


I wish he would seek/demand the advice/authority/responsibility of Congress. I hope he does not fall into the same mistakes of the last 60 yrs, and then ask Congress for a rubber stamp, because Congress would just as soon he take all responsibility. Another scapegoat. Meanwhile soldiers die daily.
Signed.

To both. Very true each way.

pefjr
10-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Well, the Prez is asking and what does he get?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from the White House Tuesday to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/28066/33664254/SIG=11mbn2qpq/*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28010.html) the president produces.

Same ol Congress for 70 years now. Predictably detached attitude. "Whatever you say Prez."

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091008/pl_politico/28066

ccmanuals
10-08-2009, 02:52 PM
Well, the Prez is asking and what does he get?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from the White House Tuesday to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/28066/33664254/SIG=11mbn2qpq/*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28010.html) the president produces.

Same ol Congress for 70 years now. Predictably detached attitude. "Whatever you say Prez."

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091008/pl_politico/28066

I think our congress has really shown it's true allegences with the focus on the health care debate. I don't think anyone could argue that our representatives are more concerned about reelection and serving those who provide them money than they are about serving the people who elected them.

peb
10-08-2009, 04:21 PM
At least one good thing that Obama is doing that Bush didn't do is to respect the military chain of command. Obama deals with Gates. He shouldn't be dealing directly with the generals or even the service secretaries. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that he was a Captain in the ANG and when he was President he kinda "got off" telling generals what to do.

This is a dumb statement on a couple of grounds. From a historical standpoint it is wrong, all of the great wartime presidents, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, that may be all that I can think of), dealt with their generals directly at times. From a management standpoint, it is a bad, bad idea to only talk to those who report directly to you. Never works out. Following the chain of command does not mean never talking directly to people at lower levels. I have never known a good manager who would not get up and walk into anyone's office un his organization and talk to him if he thought that person could give him good information.

peb
10-08-2009, 04:23 PM
As to Obama and the Afghan situation, anyone wants to take bets that Obama splits it somewhere down the middle, but leaning towards Biden. He will send in around 10000 troops. Its his way. Not good leadership, but thats what he does. Leans to one side, but can't quite take a stand.