Role of the military

[kilted exile]

In 2 minds whether or not to post this or not. I think there is possibly something to be got from it, but there is also a chance it will degenerate into curent politics and other taboo subjects.

The thread is inspired by this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7429238.stm) article I just saw on the bbc website. However I DO NOT wish to discuss zimbabwe, Mugabe or any other current political situation.

What I do want to discuss is the idea of this quote:


"Soldiers are not apolitical; only mercenaries are apolitical," said the general. "We should therefore stand behind our commander-in-chief."

So here are the questions that first came to my mind, feel free to chime in with your own:

1) Is it necessary for a soldier to believe in the current regime to serve?

2) Should the armed forces be a seperate entity not with a president of the country as "commander-in-chief" but instead answering the the parliament as a whole?

3) What of soldiers from, for example, Scotland that may be in favour of independence from the UK - should they be allowed to remain in the army?

[Scheherazade]

This thread will remain open at the discretion of the Forum Moderators.

Any posts - directly or indirectly - referring to current politics will be deleted without any further notice and will lead to thread closure.

Please read the Forum Rules. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/announcement.php?f=9)

[amanda_isabel]

1) Is it necessary for a soldier to believe in the current regime to serve?

2) Should the armed forces be a seperate entity not with a president of the country as "commander-in-chief" but instead answering the the parliament as a whole?

3) What of soldiers from, for example, Scotland that may be in favour of independence from the UK - should they be allowed to remain in the army?

1. I don't think that soldiers must believe in the current regime to serve, however as a soldier must be dedicated to helping the regime under which he serves to be the best it can be. Faith in the current administration may eventually develop, but I for one don't think it is a prerequisite to service in the military.

2. The commander-in-chief thing is for utilization of the military by the administration. The military is a powerful force in any society, and in my point of view it is vital that it serve the people and not the single person referred to as the commander-in-chief alone. I think the system was developed when the heads of state were generalized to be altruistic, democratatic (or otherwise, but I do mean it in positive terms) leaders and thus had the military at his or her disposal to help protect the people. Obviously that has not been the case in certain states and under certain regimes as power over the military has come to be abused, and the military has had their fair share of abuse of the power they yield. Leaving the military as a separate entity that answers to the people may essentially come to be chaotic given the number of different opinions , etc..

Either way, it's a mess if any of the two sectors, admin and military, are not on the same side of the fence.

3. I am next to clueless about the military in Scotland et al.

Note. My perspectives are based on the events that took place in Philippine history; thanks

[Virgil]

I can only speak for the United States.


Quote:
"Soldiers are not apolitical; only mercenaries are apolitical," said the general. "We should therefore stand behind our commander-in-chief."
In the US soldiers are apolitical. They take orders. There is a chain of command. If they don't agree with a policy that involves the military then when their enlistment runs out the don't have to sign up. But if they are signed up, they are obligated under military justice. They have a right to vote in an election, and express their views that way. But under military code of conduct they cannot endorese candidates, campaign for them, or publically support anyone. I believe they can contribute money to a campagn and of course privately express their opinions.



1) Is it necessary for a soldier to believe in the current regime to serve?

No. But he is obligated to carry out orders. And before someone brings it up, even if he's to kill innocent civilians? No there are guidelines to how orders must be proscribed and a soldier can disobey orders that go beyond the bounds of legitamate military function.


2) Should the armed forces be a seperate entity not with a president of the country as "commander-in-chief" but instead answering the the parliament as a whole?
Absolutely not. Legislators twist with the political winds, find difficulties in reaching consnsus or even making a decison, and take forever to even understand the problem. They are designed to debate issues. The Roman Republic elected two counsels every year for excutive leadership and on military campaigns actually alternated days of command. Even with two it made for some interesting decisions. In times of military crises, the Roman Senate would elect a sole dictator for a procribed period of time, with complete executive authority. That's actually how Julius Ceasar got himself elected (though it wasn't much of an election) dictator for life. Nonetheless the Senate realized that a body of people could not command an army. The chain of command requires a commander in chief at the head.


3) What of soldiers from, for example, Scotland that may be in favour of independence from the UK - should they be allowed to remain in the army?
I have no opinion on non-US issues. I guess that will be for the people of UK to decide.

[motherhubbard]

The thread is inspired by this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7429238.stm) article I just saw on the bbc website. However I DO NOT wish to discuss zimbabwe, Mugabe or any other current political situation.



1) Is it necessary for a soldier to believe in the current regime to serve?

2) Should the armed forces be a seperate entity not with a president of the country as "commander-in-chief" but instead answering the the parliament as a whole?

3) What of soldiers from, for example, Scotland that may be in favour of independence from the UK - should they be allowed to remain in the army?



I looked at the article and it didn’t settle well with me. For one thing your vote should be private.


1)In America many soldiers disagree with the leadership regardless of who is in charge. American soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. They do not take an oath to be the president’s personal army, but they are obligated to follow his command as long as it is not in conflict with defending the constitution.

2) I think that when you have a large group making decisions instead of leaving it to just one person makes for more sound decisions even if it is less efficient.

3)That’s kind of a tough question. In the U.S. we can’t even decide if gays should be in the military! :p This question is way too complex for me.

[Virgil]

2) I think that when you have a large group making decisions instead of leaving it to just one person makes for more sound decisions even if it is less efficient.


So why stop at the commander in chief? Why not have a committe of generals who command a committe of colonels who command a committe of majors all the way down to the committe of corporals over a single private? :lol:

[motherhubbard]

So why stop at the commander in chief? Why not have a committe of generals who command a committe of colonels who command a committe of majors all the way down to the committe of corporals over a single private? :lol:

That would sure change the defense budget, less money spent on war but more on administration. ;) I know it has to be the way it is, but I always worry about any one person having too much power. I’m not being specific to any country or political situation- just in general.

[Virgil]

That would sure change the defense budget, less money spent on war but more on administration. ;) I know it has to be the way it is, but I always worry about any one person having too much power. I’m not being specific to any country or political situation- just in general.

Well, in our country, Congress controls the purse strings of paying (the House of Representatives in this case) for any endeavor and the actual power to declare war or at least endorse an effort (the Senate in this case). If you're thinking of any current war ;) the President did get Senate approval, including members of the opposite party, one of which was the nominee of his party in the last election and a particular woman who is currently running. ;) And despite cranky whining by House of Representatives members, they have continued to fund the President. I believe a President has three months of unfettered reign to do what he feels is necessary before requiring congressional approval, both through the purse strings and through endorsement. But actual commanding of military strategy, appointing of subordinates, maintining of readiness, and other such executiive activities, a single commander in chief is essential. You would have chaos otherwise.

[motherhubbard]

all very true Virgil- and well explained. :thumbs_up I guess that's why you are my hero :D