Civilian Control of the Military

[foxglovehp]

This subject comes up from time to time, and especially when the leaders in question have dubious or non-existent military backgrounds  - such as the last three presidents.  So for discussion:

For the record, I still favor civilian control of the military. It's the system we have and it works reasonably well most of the time. But I think you

Comments

[exvapi]

An interesting position, but, since the three "greatest" war time presidents (Lincon, Wilson, and FDR) never served, not persuasive.

(And Lincon's milita service in Ill. doesn't really count.)

[foxglovehp]

One could easily argue both Wilson and FDR. Lincoln may be the exception which proves the rule. That said, I am not referring solely of leading troops in time of war. Both Wilson and FDR's policies aside from their respective wars are obvious examples of how badly a president can screw things up. Wilson of ran with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War". We can see how well that worked out. FDR of course gave us the welfare state...

[level_head]

I'm a big fan of Lincoln -- and those were extraordinary circumstances indeed. But I am glad that you put "greatest" in quotes when you included Wilson and Roosevelt.

It wasn't their war performance, per se -- that wasn't too bad. It was everything else.

Heinlein's point was to put people in charge who have shown commitment to their country by putting themselves in harm's way, or at least undergoing difficult and unpleasant work (since much Federal service was non-military). The result of this, he believed, was better decisions on the part of the person, later, when they voted -- or ran for office. I think he was right.

But Wilson in particular was an enemy of the country's founding documents, and wrote about how bad the Constitution was. Before being elected. We elected him anyway; the media loved Wilson the radical professor.

===|==============/ Level Head

[exvapi]

And the opposite is also based on fact. Look at the train wreak Mr. Davis made of the western confederate armies and he was a decorated Mexican war regiment commander, and West Pont grad.

[foxglovehp]

And I am not implying that service necessarily makes one a better person. Only that service should be required to vote or hold office.

[exvapi]

I was commenting on the title of the post "civilian control of the military", not on the domestic success or failure of the presidant.

And there is always Polk to disprove, or prove the position. The Mexican war was started on his watch to add northern Mexico and Calf to the union. The US won, but the bad feelings with Mexico linger still.

[foxglovehp]

I would not want a serving President to still be wearing the uniform. Thus we would retain civilian control of the military. But I contend the overall good would be served if our elected officials had demonstrated their willingness to put their lives on the line for their country.

[foxglovehp]

I cross-posted this to conservatism, libertarian and liberal communities. Interesting comment on the conservatism community by level_head:

"Heinlein's setup guaranteed that the military would be completely controlled by civilians. You cannot hold office, or even obtain your citizenship franchise (i.e. be able to vote) until you left the federal service. So a career government servant, or a career military officer, would never be able to vote until he or she retired.

As the book notes, you can apply to serve even if disabled -- they'll find something for you to do as long as you can understand the oath. And it certainly does not have to be military; the story describes various civil research projects (including "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch" as something a blind person could do).

I like his system. Citizenship is earned, but optional. And one person in the book was quite proud of his family: five generations without citizenship. (His opinion changed.)"

[selenite]

So--Peace Corps? Americorps? Postal Service?

I favor *some* kind of service but it should be broader than just military. How broad can be debated.

[foxglovehp]

As someone had reminded me on one of the other communities:

"Heinlein's setup guaranteed that the military would be completely controlled by civilians. You cannot hold office, or even obtain your citizenship franchise (i.e. be able to vote) until you left the federal service. So a career government servant, or a career military officer, would never be able to vote until he or she retired.

As the book notes, you can apply to serve even if disabled -- they'll find something for you to do as long as you can understand the oath. And it certainly does not have to be military; the story describes various civil research projects (including "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch" as something a blind person could do).

I like his system. Citizenship is earned, but optional. And one person in the book was quite proud of his family: five generations without citizenship. (His opinion changed.)"

[agoodcuppajoe]

I have to believe that military experience would give a civilian leader a better perspective on the roles and implementation of a fighting force. But there are also people who won't get it either way. I don't believe a certain ex-president was any better a leader to a professional baseball franchise than he was for a nation