PDA

View Full Version : What power does the president have over the troops?



axxxel
01-14-2012, 05:06 PM
Hello there, I'm a non-american who has been lurking these forums since about 2006 and I believe this is my second account.

My girlfriend and I were having a discussion on US foreign policy and a question came up: Has anything "technical" kept Obama from bringing the troops home; would such a decision have to be ratified by congress or is it within his powers to do so when he wants to since he is the commander in chief?

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 05:46 PM
Hello there, I'm a non-american who has been lurking these forums since about 2006 and I believe this is my second account.

My girlfriend and I were having a discussion on US foreign policy and a question came up: Has anything "technical" kept Obama from bringing the troops home; would such a decision have to be ratified by congress or is it within his powers to do so when he wants to since he is the commander in chief?

Apparently you haven't been watching the news.

axxxel
01-14-2012, 06:07 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 06:43 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?

I think you just answered it for yourself.

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 06:44 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?Obama would like to be re-elected, so even if he did have the power, doing something incredibly stupid like instantly hauling all our troops out of foreign countries would cost him dearly. Not to mention the "minor" point that doing so would guarantee that there would be NO peace in many countries. (Just in case you haven't noticed, it's not the US that is blowing up markets, mosques, and civilians.) :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Next time you want a question answered, ask one that isn't so stupid, OK?

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 06:48 PM
Really the question is not what he can do by law, but what he can get away with while having a weak willed congress and politically uneducated American people.

Molon Labe
01-14-2012, 06:51 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?

You are both wrong.

It's real easy.

The U.S Constitution


Article I
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Article II
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This has been bastardized to mean he has unfettered powe to deploy the troops anytime he feels since Korea.

He can bring them home anytime he likes. Unfortunately when you have cloudy mission goals...you can keep them engaged perpetually forever when you ignore the supreme law of the land

Lanie
01-14-2012, 07:17 PM
He's the Commander-in-Chief. That means his power is almost limitless in regards to the military.

Lanie
01-14-2012, 07:19 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?

Well, here's the thing. Restoring world peace is not that easy. Obama brought the troops home from Iraq. That was good for us, but bad for them because attacks escalated overnight. The President also can't make people from other countries behave. So it really depends on what you mean by restoring the peace, restoring the peace for who?

axxxel
01-14-2012, 07:35 PM
Thanks for the replies.

So when the administration withdrew the grand majority of US troops from Iraq it had to go through congress or what? If so, how did it pass?

Edit: I read your replies again and decided Obama just called the shot and had it done, is this correct?

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 08:12 PM
Thanks for the replies.

So when the administration withdrew the grand majority of US troops from Iraq it had to go through congress or what? If so, how did it pass?

Edit: I read your replies again and decided Obama just called the shot and had it done, is this correct?
Pretty much, against most advice.

Molon Labe
01-15-2012, 12:52 AM
Thanks for the replies.

So when the administration withdrew the grand majority of US troops from Iraq it had to go through congress or what? If so, how did it pass?

Edit: I read your replies again and decided Obama just called the shot and had it done, is this correct?


And herein lies the problem of undeclared wars with ambiguous objectives and ubiquitous themes such as the GWOT.

Once the Congress issues a Declaration of War, the the POTUS is to command the troops until those objectives are met, win the war and return to the starting position. He does not need Congress approval on how to fight and win the engagement. Of course the Congress has every right, however imprudent this may be, to end the war. This is based on the belief that the public decides through it's Legislature when and what wars are to be fought. The last one of these was WWII

Today you have exclusive power of the executive to do with the troops as he may.

And that is the dilemma for Obama. Obama has NO clear mission objectives, and unfettered power to deploy US troops for as long as he sees fit. So if Obama brings the troops home or leaves them is really up to what he has concluded in his fuzzy executive military decision making process.

Today we pass these vague "Authorizations of the Use of Force"...which lay out no objectives and do not put the onus on Congress.

A typical AFTUOF these days is basically a free pass saying....."We know you deployed or are going to deploy the troops into some god awful region of podunk sandville, and are getting ready for an engagement and we won't try to stop you....we'll let you have the money you need to do whatever you want, just as long as were clear it's "your" responsibility if this shit fails".

Rockntractor
01-15-2012, 12:54 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/there-you-go-again-pres-demotivational-posters-1326599579.jpg

txradioguy
01-15-2012, 10:40 AM
He's the Commander-in-Chief. That means his power is almost limitless in regards to the military.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

If you're gonna humor a repeat offender troll like axxel...at least speak to him from a base of knowledge of what you're talking about.

txradioguy
01-15-2012, 10:41 AM
Today you have exclusive power of the executive to do with the troops as he may.

You need to take the same advice I gave Bridget.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

txradioguy
01-15-2012, 10:43 AM
So when the administration withdrew the grand majority of US troops from Iraq it had to go through congress or what? If so, how did it pass?

This administration had nothing to do with the timeline of withdrawal...except take credit for it.

The original timeline was put in place by the Bush Administration. If obama did anything he sped it up against the wished of commanders at the Pentagon and on the ground in Iraq.

Then proceeded to screw up (some say purposely) the negotiations to keep around 3-5K soldiers in country.

txradioguy
01-15-2012, 10:46 AM
Obama brought the troops home from Iraq.

No he didn't. The agreement struck between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government brought the troops home.

As much as you Libtards would like to Hi 5 yourself for that one...you can't.


That was good for us, but bad for them because attacks escalated overnight. T

It's bad for everyone because now that Obama has gone against the recommendations of his commanders...we;ll be back there...again...to help the Iraqi's fight off Iran and their associated groups from turning Iraq into another Egypt.

DumbAss Tanker
01-15-2012, 01:52 PM
It's a dynamic, not an up-or-down technical question. Could the President redeploy the troops to the US (As oppposed to dispatching them on a new mission overseas, which is an entirely different issue), without Congress? Absolutely.

Would this create more problems than it solved, yes. Afghanistan in particular would descend back into its normal state of being a chaotic bloodbath of regional warlords, with Kabul in the hands of the Taliban again within no more than three years.

Would it piss off the countries where they ARE deployed, when a significant-to-huge economic component of their economy vaporizes? Absolutely.

Would it show our nominal allies that out commitment to any security agreements with them counts for as much as yesterday's toilet paper? No question.

Would this empower other nutballs not directly involved in war with us now, such as North Korea and Iran? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that one. Hence the popular reluctance to back any such play in Congress and the general electorate, neither of which may be rocket scientists, but both of which have a certain raw animal survival instinct when it comes to recognizing ideas so bad that they are likely to bring on a catastrophe in the very near term.

NJCardFan
01-15-2012, 02:36 PM
Well I'm arguing that he can do pretty much as he please because he's the commander in chief and my liberal GF thinks it's "the republicans' fault" he hasn't restored world peace.

Can you please just answer the question?

You can tell your liberal GF that she can rub that on her chest. If you, or she, thinks that the world will be all puppy dogs and rainbows if we pulled our troops home then I have a few piles of something in my back yard I'd like to sell you.

Black Phoenix
01-19-2012, 01:01 AM
First off, to Molon Labe, I know you're quoting the US constitution saying the CONGRESS has the power to declare war, not the president but, like the war or not, actually congress did declare it. A long time ago congress voted on both the war in Afghanistan and then when it came up, they voted on the war in Iraq. Both wars were declared in turn and the only thing the president did before hand was stage troops. You must be confusing the GWOT with the "wars for peace" of the Clinton administration. Clinton skirted the issue by sending our troops to many locations around the world, but never actually acknowledging that what were were doing constituted war. You need to remember, the constitution does not read:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water -unless members of the libertarian party, only to exist two hundred years from now, don't happen to agree!"

As to AXXEL, do I think the United States President can pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? He can... he can't make a treaty by himself but he can pull the troops out if he wants. It's called separation of powers and yes, it is intended to slow down governmental processes if you're wondering. What Obama has done, pull out all but fifty thousands troops (twice what we have on the border of North Korea which we're still technically at war with) is basically... shuffle around trying not to get on anyone's bad side.

Want my input? Stop forcing American soldiers to baby enemy combatants so my buddies can do their job and scare the living sh** out of our enemies like we did with Japan and Britain did with Germany so we can end this conflict and bring our boys home. Right now the Iraqi police pretty much sit on their butts relying on the American troops to do everything for them and the soldiers can't do anything until their actually fired at by enemy combatants. Meanwhile we've got every fu***** whiny a** dufis with an internet connection and five bucks in the states calling the troops baby killers when the soldiers are trained every day not to target civilians and I hate to break it to all the pansies out there but we are in a fu***** kill or be killed down and dirty war. If we're scared of killing civilians and can't justify doing it, we shouldn't be in a war. It's called a "last resort" for a fu***** reason! You don't bring a fu***** gun into a fight between grade schoolers do you? Well if you don't believe a situation is serious then don't deploy troops. If it is serious, then get off their backs and let them take care of business!

Black Phoenix
01-19-2012, 01:09 AM
As to the presidents: screw Clinton, screw Bush and screw Obamanation, when we get a president who actually cares about the troops beyond using them as a tool, give me a call.

txradioguy
01-19-2012, 04:04 AM
As to the presidents: screw Clinton, screw Bush and screw Obamanation, when we get a president who actually cares about the troops beyond using them as a tool, give me a call.

Hate to tell you this n00b...but despite his faults...Bush DID care about those of us in uniform.

Black Phoenix
01-19-2012, 06:12 AM
Tell you this. I would be with you until after the push, as most soldiers would be. But then it was like something happened as we suddenly had a ton of ridiculous restrictions on us. We don't target civilians, I get it, but ya know what, if a terrorist shooting at us goes into a mosque, we're not playing tag and a freaking church is "base". The horror stories my buddies told me about confirming military targets and then being turned down because of some UN regulation... sorry, I just got out of serving in MI for five years, and with the lack luster training, (often referred to as the "kinder, gentler army") and the overzealous regulations that didn't change under either president Bush or Obamanation...

I don't know. I always have a love hate thing with Bush. He had wonderful ideas for the military and supported them in his speeches, but the things that were going to hell while he was in office went right on their marry way there. Kinda like his education reform and social security reform packages. Great ideas, but all he really ended up doing was increasing spending. I know the guy tried to push through his original ideas but... well then why the heck did he push through the spending increases after those original plans failed to get by congress? Bush is just a hard guy to hate and a hard guy to back and I often just resent him for it. He was elected to be a strong conservative republican, and then he purposely selected liberal democrats to key positions as a part of his "new tone" initiative. He cut taxes, but then increased spending like mad. Bush was no Reagen but he was no Clinton either. I agree he wasn't the demon he was made out to be, but I wouldn't label him an angel just the same. Maybe that's why there's so much unbridled hatred for the guy.

txradioguy
01-19-2012, 09:59 AM
We ended up getting those restrictions because of "that guy". The one dumbass that fucked up did something illegal and it was plastered all over the tv. One idiot or one squad of idiots as is the case with 5-2 caused the entire freaking Army to have to do dumbshit. That's why I tell my soldiers son't be "that guy".

And it wasn't PResident Bush going around saying we were air raiding villages, terrorizing women and children and calling our brothers in the Marines "murderers".

That was our current CINC...A Dem Senator from Massachussetts and a Dem Congress Critter from Pennsylvania.

And they were aided by the media who hated President Bush...despise the military and look for any little thing to make us look bad.

Tell me when was the last time our current CINC went to Walter Reed or to BAMC to visit wounded warriors?

President Bush did that all the damn time. And it wasn't for show.

There's unbridled hatred for President Bush because of an unrelenting campaign of hate and outright lies going all the way back to his win in 2001.

Was he perfect...hell no. I honestly think he gave up the last two years and let the Dems do what they wanted.

But it's a flat out falsehood to think he didn't care for those of us in uniform.

Black Phoenix
01-19-2012, 08:04 PM
We ended up getting those restrictions because of "that guy". The one dumbass that fucked up did something illegal and it was plastered all over the tv. One idiot or one squad of idiots as is the case with 5-2 caused the entire freaking Army to have to do dumbshit. That's why I tell my soldiers son't be "that guy".

-Half the time I was never sure about the "that guy" thing. Who was the guy who made it so none of the MI soldiers can drive a military vehicle without an NCO on Fort Drum? On the flip side, being the guy who gave us the more wonderful ideas, who was the guy who was ever saved by a rope on the back of your humvee about three inches above the tailgate? Some of the other soldiers in my unit and I had a belief that making rules actually helped certain officers get more recognition, hence many of the rules really had no bearing on helping us or anyone else for that matter. But I guess that's off subject.-

I guess any idiot could have told that one troop not to video tape themselves screwing around with the prisoners, no matter how funny they thought they were being and that what they were doing was a-moral at best... yea, I blame soldiers for their own stupid actions. Yea, I'll go with you on that causing trouble, but I really think there's a point at which you can't use them as scape goats any more.


And it wasn't PResident Bush going around saying we were air raiding villages, terrorizing women and children and calling our brothers in the Marines "murderers".

That was our current CINC...A Dem Senator from Massachussetts and a Dem Congress Critter from Pennsylvania.

HEY! Credit where credit is due, that was John Fing Kerry. That man damn well earned the title of traitor when he took every opportunity he could to attack his fellow soldiers for his own personal gain and no community organizer is going to take that title from him in my book.


Was he perfect...hell no. I honestly think he gave up the last two years and let the Dems do what they wanted.

But it's a flat out falsehood to think he didn't care for those of us in uniform.

Have you ever heard the term "a friend to all is a friend to none"? Bush seemed to take the same policy with the military that he took with the rest of politics. He increased the defense budget, defended the troops in his speeches and didn't go on golfing trips to skip out on serious military observances (do I need to say it, IMPEACH OBAMA!) However he also caved and allowed tighter and tighter restrictions to be placed on the soldiers until most of my friends were starting to feel like they were nothing more than glorified meat shields over there. War is not the time to play both sides of the fence on issues. Was Bush better than Clinton and Obama? Hell yes and by a long shot. I still don't know how much his heart was really in it though.

Molon Labe
01-19-2012, 08:49 PM
First off, to Molon Labe, I know you're quoting the US constitution saying the CONGRESS has the power to declare war, not the president but, like the war or not, actually congress did declare it. A long time ago congress voted on both the war in Afghanistan and then when it came up, they voted on the war in Iraq. Both wars were declared in turn and the only thing the president did before hand was stage troops. You must be confusing the GWOT with the "wars for peace" of the Clinton administration. Clinton skirted the issue by sending our troops to many locations around the world, but never actually acknowledging that what were were doing constituted war. You need to remember, the constitution does not read:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water -unless members of the libertarian party, only to exist two hundred years from now, don't happen to agree!"

I hear what you are saying, but it's intellectually dishonest to suggest this belief runs partisan lines.

A war has not been declared by congress since Dec 7, 1941. Go study the historical precedents of Declarations and you will see the difference is of of focus and goals and the power of the executive. Maybe it doesn't spell it out in the constitution like you say, but earlier precedents knew what it meant.

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. There was none of that in either GWOT engagement.

I reject the notion that Congress takes it's war responsibilities seriously today. I have argued this ad nauseum. We must agree to disagree.

Black Phoenix
01-20-2012, 02:55 AM
There was no planned precise end to world war two. It ended in 1945 because the Germans and Japanese surrendered. (Don't quote me on it, but I think the Italians surrendered long before that.) No time table and really I don't think the plans went too far on how things would end. We hashed out terms of surrender when the Japanese and Germans were willing to talk, not before.

fettpett
01-20-2012, 03:03 AM
There was no planned precise end to world war two. It ended in 1945 because the Germans and Japanese surrendered. (Don't quote me on it, but I think the Italians surrendered long before that.) No time table and really I don't think the plans went too far on how things would end. We hashed out terms of surrender when the Japanese and Germans were willing to talk, not before.

Sept 8, 1943 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_between_Italy_and_Allied_armed_forces

No, there was no planned end to the war, but there were objectives and goals. Part of the problem with Vietnam was that we went in and went for all the little crap first instead of trying to defeat the enemy we tried bleeding him to death.

fettpett
01-20-2012, 03:26 AM
I hear what you are saying, but it's intellectually dishonest to suggest this belief runs partisan lines.

A war has not been declared by congress since Dec 7, 1941. Go study the historical precedents of Declarations and you will see the difference is of of focus and goals and the power of the executive. Maybe it doesn't spell it out in the constitution like you say, but earlier precedents knew what it meant.

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. There was none of that in either GWOT engagement.

I reject the notion that Congress takes it's war responsibilities seriously today. I have argued this ad nauseum. We must agree to disagree.

not true, Both Iraq and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress

Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

both specifically authorize the use of the US military to be used. the documents do not have to say "Deceleration of War" to be considered legal.

Does Congress take it's role seriously? Some do, some don't...over all...probably not as much as it should.

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 05:58 AM
not true, Both Iraq and Afghanistan were authorized by Congress

Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

both specifically authorize the use of the US military to be used. the documents do not have to say "Deceleration of War" to be considered legal.

Does Congress take it's role seriously? Some do, some don't...over all...probably not as much as it should.

Hell even Ron Paul voted in favor of combat in Afghanistan.

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 06:04 AM
-Half the time I was never sure about the "that guy" thing. Who was the guy who made it so none of the MI soldiers can drive a military vehicle without an NCO on Fort Drum? On the flip side, being the guy who gave us the more wonderful ideas, who was the guy who was ever saved by a rope on the back of your humvee about three inches above the tailgate? Some of the other soldiers in my unit and I had a belief that making rules actually helped certain officers get more recognition, hence many of the rules really had no bearing on helping us or anyone else for that matter. But I guess that's off subject.-

I guess any idiot could have told that one troop not to video tape themselves screwing around with the prisoners, no matter how funny they thought they were being and that what they were doing was a-moral at best... yea, I blame soldiers for their own stupid actions. Yea, I'll go with you on that causing trouble, but I really think there's a point at which you can't use them as scape goats any more.



HEY! Credit where credit is due, that was John Fing Kerry. That man damn well earned the title of traitor when he took every opportunity he could to attack his fellow soldiers for his own personal gain and no community organizer is going to take that title from him in my book.



Have you ever heard the term "a friend to all is a friend to none"? Bush seemed to take the same policy with the military that he took with the rest of politics. He increased the defense budget, defended the troops in his speeches and didn't go on golfing trips to skip out on serious military observances (do I need to say it, IMPEACH OBAMA!) However he also caved and allowed tighter and tighter restrictions to be placed on the soldiers until most of my friends were starting to feel like they were nothing more than glorified meat shields over there. War is not the time to play both sides of the fence on issues. Was Bush better than Clinton and Obama? Hell yes and by a long shot. I still don't know how much his heart was really in it though.


Our actions and those of soldies either above us or below us are the reason we have any restrictions we have today.

We've done it to ourselves.

That's not scapegoating...that's the reality of the situation.

AmPat
01-20-2012, 02:19 PM
What power does the president have over the troops?He certainly has the power to conduct social experiments with the greatest and strongest military ever seen on the face of the earth. We can soon expect Sashaying while marching in basic training.:cool:

fettpett
01-20-2012, 09:13 PM
Hell even Ron Paul voted in favor of combat in Afghanistan.

yeah, then sat back and claimed it was illegal :rolleyes: