Careers of generals have been ended,yet it seems their superior should be to blame. I'm not referring to any specific president. Does the president make the final decision about a mission?
2007-12-26 08:10:51 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I really don't need it explained to me,I'm just trying to point out the obvious to those that blame presidents. That goes for both sides.
2007-12-26 08:20:15 · update #1
because when a higher authority can put the blame on a lower one he will have no hesitations. If a school closes down it's the pupils not the teachers. If a dog bites someone it's the dog's fault, not the trainers etc........
2007-12-26 20:15:16 · answer #1 · answered by irashymisfit 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the president is not involved in that way. The president, as Commander-In-Chief has the authority to decide wheather or not military action will take place.
Example: Following 9/11, Pres. Bush sent troops to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and hunt down Osama Bin Laden. Congress the authorized the funding for this. Now, what happens from that point on is entirely up to the military leaders (Generals, Chiefs of Staff, etc.). When something goes wrong, usually the person(s) who planned and implemented it take responsibility.
If you have an employee, and you send him to the hardware store to buy some rope, and while he's in there, he steals some tools, who is at fault? Certainly not the employer.
2007-12-26 16:20:18 · answer #2 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Look the president and the administration go to war and may set some groundrules such as rules of engagement, but for the most part combat operations are the military's job. It is not a sitting president's fault when a battle is lost, even though it may not be the general's either, but he is leading and takes the blame.
2007-12-26 16:16:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is all about accountability. If a private violates orders, and indiscriminately kills civilians, he is responsible.
If the rules of engagement are written in such a way as to make those orders vague and ambiguous, resulting in the needless killing of innocent civilians, those who wrote the regs, and supervised training are responsible.
If the leadership in Washington pressures the military leadership to write orders intended to put the lives of occupation forces ahead of the citizenry they are there, ostensibly to protect, in order to placate an American public who will not stand for flag draped coffins coming home at the rate they did in Vietnam, then the Administration, AND the American public that supported them are responsible.
In any event, leaders are elected to BE responsible. Even though they may not be directly involved in writing orders, they are responsible for selecting those that do, and for setting clear goals and objectives.
I worked for a guy who had me supervise a crew of people I had no say in selecting for, or removing from the project. The result was a disaster, I was made responsible when the guy who thought he could save money by hiring unqualified people should have been.
Lesson learned. I no longer accept the responsibility for people I have NO control over.
2007-12-26 16:28:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the president is even involved in the selection of a mission, the president would simply approve the execution of the mission, and not be involved in how the mission is run. This is left to the experts.
2007-12-26 16:15:23 · answer #5 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This CIC won't take responsibility for anything. It is always someone else's fault. As the CEO of the country, he said he would run the country like a business, (had several failed business but anyhow) he is accountable for whatever happens regardless of his direct responsibility. He and his lackeys don't seem to see that. They want it both ways all good for him. Democratic landslide in '08.
2007-12-26 16:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The President does not approve every military mission. That's why we have generals.
2007-12-26 16:15:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because the General plans it, not the President, atleast any good president doesn't do what the generals with the experience should be doing.
2007-12-26 16:14:21 · answer #8 · answered by godgunsandgl0ry 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the President is not the commander on the ground and in charge of how the fighting is done.
2007-12-26 16:46:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because when power is used to ill effect, a sacrifice must be made to calm the masses, (read that as mob). those in higher pay grades will find some way to insure a subordinate is painted with failure.
2007-12-26 16:21:09 · answer #10 · answered by bilez1 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋