If we put complete authority to run wars in the hands of the military, like so many suggest, will we always be

Question

involved in a war somewhere?

Good answers so far folks, thanks, keep em' coming.

Answer 1

The Military should be given complete authority to prosecute a war after the civilian government has decided to go to war.
The Military should then conduct the war with concern only for the lives of the military personnel and the safety of the USA. No mercy for the enemy. Civilians in the war zone should flee. The loss of the civilians will devastate the enemy more than our bombs and bullets. No military can exist without civilian support. The only true non-combatant is fleeing with their children. If they are making sandwiches or cooking rice for the enemy, they are the enemy!

Answer 2

There is no possibility of putting complete responsibility for war in the hands of the military. It is Constitutionally impossible. It would also be disastrous for military men are not well versed in the notions of freedom and liberty or politics or diplomacy. The Founding Fathers wisely put the control of the military in the Congress and the White House and there it should belong. What is needed, however, is a more wise handling of that power, a less cowardly oversight of the President by Congress and of both by the people. We have a tendency to rally behind the leadership in times of war too placidly and thoughtlessly. Every single time an incumbent President faced re-election in our history that President won. This rally round the Flag mentality should not usurp sound judgment and criticism and the need to remove incompetent leadership who have started unjust wars or who are leading our military in an unwise manner. Bush's duplicity and incompetence were revealed long before the 2004 elections. He should have been removed then, as should Congressional members who supported him. That was the failing in the system, not the Constitutional allocation of military command. We the People erred. And We the People must take that lesson into the future and not repeat that mistake again. The next time a President talks of war, we must be wiser, and more attentive and we must speak out to our representatives and if they do not listen we must vote them out.

Answer 3

F.D.R. put complete authority to run WW2 in the hands of his generals. They got the job done.

You can't let the military control when and where you go to war, but you can tell them to kick someones butt and turn them lose.

You may not get the type of war that would be acceptable to some people in America and the press would not like it, but the war would be over quickly with minimal loss of American life.

That was what we did in both world wars. Unfortunately in both world war we did lose a lot of G.I.'s because of the number of opposing forces we where fighting. The opposition we face today and probably in the future would not provide a lot of resistance.

I don't condone the killing of civilians in any way, but you have to make choice, all wars in the future will be like Iraq, or they will be over quickly with lots of civilian casualties.

My personal preference is to just drop a bunch of weapons between Iraq, Iran, and Syria and let them have at it. We could come back in ten years and see how it all panned out.

Answer 4

Let the wars be under military control,only after the attempts at "preventing "them,by the civilian lead mouth-pieces,have failed..In no way should a person that has not one inkling of military workings,be allowed to run the war.. Just because I've heard of the game of chess,doesn't mean I should compete in the world championships..

Answer 5

Absolutely not. The military is made up of our Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, cousins, neighbors etc...etc...etc... Are they war mongers? This military only answers the call of strife. We don't start anything. The politicians start the wars. The military fights and finishes them if they are allowed to. Should we let the military be the driving force in war tactics? You bet.

Answer 6

No. The decision to go to war rests in the hands of the politicians. Once that decision is made, it is best to turn the execution of the war over to the professionals. Let the plumbers take care of the pipes once a decision has been made to renovate the bathroom.

Answer 7

probably not,...

for 2 reasons,..

1. Military individuals for the most part have no political agendas

2. Because of #1, we'd simply beat the ever living out of whoever screwed with us, and forget about all the political niceties.

This woulds result in

1. Less countires messing with us since they know if they do, we will simply stomp the S@#$ out of them, not threaten for years and allow them to get ready for us.

2. More peace and prosperity for our forces, since our forces would not be off fighting wars that don't concern our country but concern peoples political ideals.

Answer 8

Not necessarily, when a war is ongoing it is better to let them make to proper decisions to decide battles and troop movement. The military personal would much rather get the war over with and back home to their families, not be mercenaries and hit men

Answer 9

Absolutely . Have you heard of the military-industrial complex . It aint just some conspiracy theory . There is good money to be made in war , just on the manufacturing end . Throw in the spoils of war, and you have a very profitable enterprise . Of course , no care or consideration is made for those who die fighting these wars . Eisenhower warned of this , and it looks to be coming to pass.

Answer 10

Now you know why the founding Fathers put the military under civilian control. The Constitution is our only hope.