US Politics thread

[Grantrithor]

The minister of defence in canada is also a military man who's been on several tour of dutys and it's not a police state here. Also I want politicians to become soldiers so that they can understand war and think things through when they declare them. They want the war, they fight it.

[Furrnox]

No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

The US have had several former generals become presidents so I don't think it's a big deal over there.

[USMC_Vicious]

No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

zzzzzzzz yeah because civilian nitwits with no field experience or military experience whatsoever should dictate like the DoD? Nah I don't think so lol the whole "muh military is very strong paranoia military state" is some bs......and in this day and age we need some hard dick mofos like Mattis to lead the way and get it done the right way unlike what Obama's administration has been doing for the last 8 years. These Generals are the definition of Patriots and to think they would do anything not in the common interest of the USA and its citizens is also absurd and something some liberal who lives in SF would say. Its these same type of people who think cops have too much armament......

[Olafson]

I guess the US has to see their government overthrown by the military before they understand the problem of the military ruling itself.

[Riddlez]

You guys seem to forget one thing: the secetary of Defense doesn't need experience to deal with the military. The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.

[Peppers]

So many smarter euros that understand what happens in the states on this thread.

[Duuring]

Back to the old "You don't live here so you can't know shit about this!"-argument, I see.

[StevenChilton]

No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

In a functioning liberal democracy the military really isn't that powerful-how many men would obey orders to oppose a democratic government in the Western world? How could you practically get unanimous agreement from all the senior figures in the chain of command to issue those orders? The US has had a large number of former senior generals go on to become President, and about half of all US Presidents have been war veterans. Many former soldiers sit in the legislatures of western democracies and their service is usually highlighted in their election campaigns.

The important thing here is they're no longer serving in the armed forces. Mattis is retired, he's now a civilian with military experience.

[Olafson]

In the US, can soldiers decide not to obey orders under certain conditions?
I know in the German Military, if an order is either a suicide mission or against the law (killing civilians and shit like that) they are allowed (or actually asked...) to not obey the order. Can you do that in the US Military?

[Duuring]

There is a difference between a politician with a military record and someone who has never served in public office and is then appointed to office. I'm not saying Mattis will turn the USA into a dictatorship in the blink of an eye. I'm saying that appointing someone based on his military record into the position of what is supposted to be our civilian oversight of the military is a step in the wrong direction. Mattis is a great battlefield commander, but that's a skill entirely irrelevant for secretary of defense.

In a functioning liberal democracy the military really isn't that powerful-how many men would obey orders to oppose a democratic government in the Western world? How could you practically get unanimous agreement from all the senior figures in the chain of command to issue those orders?

More then you think. Following orders without getting your personal feelings in the way is sorta what you're trained for. Militairy coups don't work with generals going into a big gym of everyone involved and blatantly stating that they're gonna overthrow the government. Often, most if not all of the enlisted men have no idea they're in a coup. You're right, of course - In a working liberal democracy, the militairy isn't that powerful because it's very carefully monitored by the civilian state.

Even the Polish Home Army, the biggest single resistance force in World War 2, was controlled by a civilian government.

[Karth]

In the US, can soldiers decide not to obey orders under certain conditions?
I know in the German Military, if an order is either a suicide mission or against the law (killing civilians and shit like that) they are allowed (or actually asked...) to not obey the order. Can you do that in the US Military?

Depends on the order given, you are allowed to disobey unlawful orders.  For example if ordered to execute family members of terrorists, that's obviously unlawful and the people would disobey that.  As long as you can prove in court an order is unlawful.

[Grantrithor]

The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.

Ah yes, a general would be clueless on who to (not) declare war on and how to allocate resources in war. Better give it to a pen pusher who doesn't even know what a gun is.

[Rutger Müller]

No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

zzzzzzzz yeah because civilian nitwits with no field experience or military experience whatsoever should dictate like the DoD? Nah I don't think so lol the whole "muh military is very strong paranoia military state" is some bs......and in this day and age we need some hard dick mofos like Mattis to lead the way and get it done the right way unlike what Obama's administration has been doing for the last 8 years. These Generals are the definition of Patriots and to think they would do anything not in the common interest of the USA and its citizens is also absurd and something some liberal who lives in SF would say. Its these same type of people who think cops have too much armament......

he'll never take a wife... BECAUSE HE'S MARRIED TO WAR

[BabyJesus]

Cops are pigs! Kill the cops!

[Riddlez]

The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.

Ah yes, a general would be clueless on who to (not) declare war on and how to allocate resources in war. Better give it to a pen pusher who doesn't even know what a gun is.

That's... not what the function of Secretary of Defense means...