It's time to redefine the role of Commander-in-Chief

[BushOut06]

First of all, one could make a convincing argument that the whole notion of Commander-in-Chief is outdated. National leaders no longer lead their troops in the field of battle. They don't engage in the day-to-day planning of battles. For sake of argument, I am willing to concede that there is still some role for the President in his role as C-in-C.

However, the president's role should be redefined, most likely through a Constitutional amendment. There should be no military action unless we are directly attacked, or in the event that Congress declares war. If the president feels that military action is needed, then he can make his case before Congress, and get them to declare war. No more of these ambiguous military engagements, with no real defined missions or objectives.

Another, perhaps more controversial idea, would be to require mandatory conscription for all able bodied Americans in the event that a particular military engagement lasts a specified amount of time (for example, 2 years). I think this could give pause to the politicians who think they can waltz into a country and stay there indefinitely "until the job is done". Hopefully this would encourage politicians to come up with a well-defined set of objectives, and accomplish them as quickly as possible. It's one thing to send an all-volunteer military into harm's way. But when Americans start getting drafted to serve in some lengthy ambiguous war, they're more apt to demand political change.

[SpiralHawk]

1. New rule #1: No AWOL coke-sniffers can steal the job

And then fritter away their time at an Imperial Pig Farm in Crawford, Texas

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. I think both of those are bad ideas, I'm afraid.

The former less clearly so than the latter.

The power to declare war needs to rest in the hands of one individual, not a body the size of Congress, because of response times - by the time you've gone through all the process of debating declaring war in Congress, the person you're declaring war on has a lot of warning.

And a draft is definately a daft idea. It wouldn't improve America's ability to fight wars - in an army like America's no number of untrained and unwilling amateurs will be able to do the work of a professional - and it would inflict a great deal of needless suffering. The only argument for it is that it would make fighting wars still more onerous, and I think that's a very bad line of thinking indeed.

[BushOut06]

3. The power to declare war already resides with Congress

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the President. After Pearl Harbor, FDR requested a declaration of war from Congress, and got it.

I'm not in favor of a draft either, but if presidents are going to engage in indefinite undeclared wars, there needs to be some pressure put on him. I think this is what Rangel had in mind when he introduced his draft bill.

[KittyWampus]

4. Universal Conscription would keep us OUT of wars and it wouldn't preclude professionals

from joining for a career in the military.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. You underrate the qualities of draftees and overrate the

qualities of professionals.

America's biggest, most important wars were fought and won by draftees. Some of our greatest heroes were draftees - Alvin York comes to mind.

And you have to realize that the majority of enlistees in the so-called "professional" army are actually economic draftees - they didn't sign up to fight for the country, but to get that signing bonus and the educational benefits without which they'd be lucky to be flipping burgers for a living.

So who do you think makes a better soldier - the guy who signs on the line for what he expects to get out of it, or the one who sees it as his duty to his county to submit to conscription?

I don't know if you were around in the bad old days of the draft, but the general attitude then was that is was a patriotic duty to accept it - just a few years before Cassius Clay claimed exemption on religious grounds and became Muhammed Ali, Elvis Presley put his career on hold and accepted being drafted, even though he could have probably finagled his way out if he wanted to.

What we protested then was not the draft, but being drafted to fight in an immoral, illegal war of aggression. I had a high number so never faced the choice, but I would have left the country before submitting to fight in Vietnam. OTOH, just a couple years later I enlisted in the Marines. I was willing to serve, and knew that the country was through with illegal wars of choice - no more Vietnams. OK, I was wrong on that one, but at that time it was true - I, as most draftees I knew growing up around the military, was willing to defend the nation, but not to be an aggressor for it.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Yah - it took FOREVER for Congess to declare war after Pearl Harbor.....

... Because the next day just isn't fast enough for some people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. An example of a situation where something did not cause a problem

is not a good argument that there are not situations where it will.

There is only one thing worse than a bad plan, and that is two good plans - Napoleon.

[bryant69]

5. Yeah a mandatory draft that would cripple our economy just might be controversial

I don't know though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com