Can a war be run democratically or do you need one person calling the shots?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

The War in Iraq and the War on Terror are unique compared to all of the other wars fought by America in that Congress is voting on the next course of action, in this case troop withdraws. Can America be successful with a vote on a course of action, or does the Senate need to step aside and allow the military to do the job without Senate approval? This is not a question of whether we should be there or not, but rather who should be running the war.

Answer 1

The last war we "Won" was fought by the Generals in WW 2. Truman and Congress began the practice of "Suits on the Hill" calling the shots in Korea.
Viet Nam was worse.
Iraq 1, Busg Sr. let Shwartkopf go in and do what he needed to do.
Iraq 2 is being led by the Suits of Both Parties again.
If we want to win, give it to the Military. If not, get out.

Answer 2

I believe that the decision to go to war should be done democratically with mostly everyone in agreement. Once that is done, the war should be run by one person with input from experienced advisors and reliable intelligence.

I believe that all forms of the media and non-military cameras should be banned from the battlefields and zones.

I also believe that the commander should brief the nation on a weekly basis on how the war is going. If things go well, everyone shares the praised. If things go poorly, everyone shares in the bad news. Anyone who supported “going to war” and now claims to "not have supported the war" should be drawn and quartered or at least sent back to their home state in disgrace.

That said, this war doesn't conform to my belief in any way, shape or form but since we're here, Congress should forget about the upcoming election in 2008 and concentrate on winning the war and stop the backstabbing and political positioning.

During WWI and WWII there was an energy throughout the U.S.A. that you could actually feel. Everyone was aware of the war and what it meant to lose and everyone pulled together. Nowadays, half of us don’t have a clue as to the impact of walking away from a war. As long as they get to see Oprah, Desperate Housewives and the World Series, there IS not impact on them and no reason to get involved.

Sorry for the tirade.

Answer 3

Well it should be obvious that when you let politicians try to run a war they fail miserably. But with the way the media and congress watch and criticize every move that the military makes there is little chance of progress in this or any other military battle that may face our nation.

War should be left to those people best equipped to run it and make the decisions without interruption from those who are neither trained or open minded enough to understand how a war must be fought.

Answer 4

Actually congressional interference in wars started in vietnam. As the result, soldiers were not allowed to attack the enemy on their own turf. Free fire areas were designated where the enemy wasnt and no fire areas designated where they were. Bombing missions were assigned to destroy useless targets. The fact is that congressmen seldom have any real combat experience other than watching too many John Wayne movies. That is why the military is directly responsible to the executive branch (president) as a means of eliminating war by comittee. Unfortunately, the congress has seen fit in recent conflicts to attempt to direct the war based upon their control of the militarys budget. Congress needs to stick to dealing with domestic problems and let the executive branch deal with foreign policy and allow the military to do the job that they do best. Otherwise we need to send Kennedy, Pelosi, and any other wannabe general in the congress to the Army War College.

Answer 5

Need one person calling the shots. If we didn't and let Congress run the executive, what powers would Hillary have if she were elected, and why on earth would she want to run?

Wouldn't she better run the country if she stayed in the Senate who now commands the troops and makes all foreign policy decisions? Why even have an executive branch if we are going to do everything by committee?

Answer 6

You need a lot more reading in American History. This war is not unique. Congress has almost always been quick to back a President who had a pretext, real or not, to go to war, and slow to begin stopping it, but it has happened in almost every war.

No war is ever run "by one man." The President is the Commander in Chief for historical and political reasons. Except for George Washington, no one really has ever expected the President to run a war on a day-to-day basis. Even top generals and admirals know they can't ontrol every person under their "command."

The problem is, this President has turned the military into a political branch of the executive office, so we never know what the generals really think until they retire. You cannot "run" a successful war by telling the generals what to think and do on the basis of what Dick Cheney and the other neocons want to happen.

Answer 7

Who would you hire?
Person A; No experience in war. No war training.

Person B; 20 years experience in war. 20 years war training. 15 years leadership. Knows how to, and has, used the tools.

Person A is a politician trying to gain votes.
Person B is a soldier/sailor trying to win a war

Person A does not care about the people in Iraq, or the consequences of leaving to soon.
Person B does care, and doesn't want to go back again.

My Q was rhetorical, and the answer to yours is obvious.

Answer 8

i've got faith the Rangers have a super shot at winning the AL West not via fact of their effectual, yet by ability of the unsuccessful of the Angels. The Angels are actually not the comparable a hundred recreation winning team they have been final season, or a minimum of not suited now. you're suited suitable to the surprising Rangers offense, however the Rangers protection will at last start up giving video games up. The Rangers will run away with the branch, yet this is it. only one team interior the playoffs would be from the AL West via fact all of us know of that the wild-card winner will come from the AL East. they are going to probably get themselves eradicated interior the 1st around of the playoffs.

Answer 9

The Senate must approve the war at the start after that they should stay out of it in my opinion. However they can vote to cancel that approval any time they like

Answer 10

The military along with the President need to running this war. Not some coward dem politician who is against this only for political gain. Congress is not responsible for foreign policy anyway. That's the executive branch's job...