United States military administration unique in the world

WarMachine

WarMachine

Active member
Have you ever noticed that our military never complains about our new president, whoever he may be? Other countries in south america and even europe rely on the support of the military for any leader to succeed. Yet the USA has a military organization that is very much free to do what is necessary after the orders have been given. Why is that our government never requires military support, is it our stability?
 
That is how things should go. Otherwise it's basically the military ruling the country, back to the age of warlords.
 
The military's job is to serve the country loyally and this means respecting the leader that the people have chosen.
 
Hi,

It's not Unique Actually ............ that's the way it Should be ... The Desicion making part should be with the civilian Authority ......... When Millitary startes to make desicions Porblems start to Arise .

Civilian Authority Tell them Whome to Shoot At and who is the Friend ...... they do not need to make that distinction themself ............. when Millitary starts to Argue you are in serious Trouble. ;)

Peace
-=SF_13=-
 
Re: United States military administration unique in the worl

WarMachine said:
Have you ever noticed that our military never complains about our new president, whoever he may be? Other countries in south america and even europe rely on the support of the military for any leader to succeed. Yet the USA has a military organization that is very much free to do what is necessary after the orders have been given. Why is that our government never requires military support, is it our stability?
Click to expand...

That is the way should it go in all democracies
 
It's because of the oath of service. The very first thing we swear to is the Constitution. This before all others. And that document mandates civilian control of the military is absolute whatever the party in office may be. As long as the Constitution is upheld, we support completely any person in civilian positions of control. As individuals we are free to have our beliefs and opinions but as members of the armed forces we support the authority we swore an oath to uphold.
 
Rubber Stamp what Charge said.

As for individual opinions. I will say certain Presidents enjoy more popularity on an individual level than others.
 
US has a very well established constitution and Governmental system and thats an example for other nations too but who notes!

Also, only civilians of a nation have the right to elect there leader and military's job is to mantain its doctrine of Defence and Strategic Offence and not interfere in politics.

But unfortunately, in countries where corruption is large and elected leaders who forget there duties to lead people towards the path of prosperity and make strategical blunders, then militaries do get involved to contain the situation.
 
03USMC said:
Rubber Stamp what Charge said.

As for individual opinions. I will say certain Presidents enjoy more popularity on an individual level than others.
Click to expand...

Needless to say Clinton was a very unpopular president in the US Military, Compared to the Bushes or Reagan. I think part of it is an issue of funding. Do you know your beloved Corps went bankrupt for a short period of time under the Clinton admin. Even with his unpopularity the US military still followed order with little complaint during his 8 years. That is the difference compared to other countries, your defending and protecting America and not a regime.
 
Yes I know the Corps had money problems during that administration. But so did the Navy and Army. The fix was to RIF the Corps in certain areas SNCO's and Company/Field Grade Officers and Close out enlistments for certain NCO ranks to bring down "overhead". The main problem was the Deployment Tempo. Clinton deployed the Military a great deal more than people realize that costs money and it bled the military dry especially considering the cost of extended deployments in the Balkans, Somilia, Haiti etc.

But the Military followed the orders because of the reasons stated by Charge 7.
 
I was a little leery of JFK but he was my Commander in Chief so I would have gone anywhere or done anything he ordered. I believe that a country's leader should never be seen in a military uniform. When they start to play soldier, that's the beginning of the end.
 
Yep, nobody in the Clinton administration noticed that the Marines did no facing manouvers when he exited Marine One. Media picked right up on it when it was restored when Bush came into office. That was the only visible display of a lack of approval and it was very, very subtle.

As for personal opinions, well, I always wonder that when they start talking about cutbacks in the military that personnel are at the top of the list. The entire personnel budget of the military including active duty, reserves, and retirement benefits is only about 8% of the total military budget. Big savings.
 
Thats cuz it's safer and easier to RIF out Cpl. Smuckatelli, Sgt. Brown SSGT Smith. Leave Lt's, Capt's, Majors, and Col's unagumented and passed over. And stand down active duty units and put their responsibility on the Reserves. Than it is to PO Boeing, Dow, Grumman, etc. When your an elected official.
 
Charge 7 said:
Yep, nobody in the Clinton administration noticed that the Marines did no facing manouvers when he exited Marine One. Media picked right up on it when it was restored when Bush came into office. That was the only visible display of a lack of approval and it was very, very subtle.
Click to expand...

www.snopes.com
 
Well, it appears you are correct afterall. I remembered hearing it on CNN years ago when President Bush assumed office, but evidently they didn't check their facts on that and I didn't checkup on them either.

Harry Levins of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch looked into this one and found it fiction.

In an article from March 10, 2001, he quotes a spokesperson from Marine Corps headquarters as flatly denying the eRumor. The spokesperson said the Marines assigned to the president's helicopter have a protocol for greeting the president and have used it equally for both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush. That is that the
The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away."

Any Marines departing from that would not be disrespecting the man, but the presidency, and that would not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

I'll trust the Marines to know the truth.
 
The Marines followed the protocol as set forth for rendering honors to POTUS. To not do so would have tarnished the reputation of the Corps.

Did they do so with a little less ethusiasm. Probably. Clinton was not popular with individual Marines. But remember the Marines that are assigned duty as honor guard at the White House are the cream of the Crop from Marine Barracks 8th and I the Oldest Post in the Corps. There is alot of tradition that goes with being assigned those duties and those traditions are taken very seriously by the Marines assigned to that Post. Regardless of whether the Individual Marine likes the man serving, or doesn't he's still POTUS.
 
Re: United States military administration unique in the worl

WarMachine said:
Have you ever noticed that our military never complains about our new president, whoever he may be? Other countries in south america and even europe rely on the support of the military for any leader to succeed. Yet the USA has a military organization that is very much free to do what is necessary after the orders have been given. Why is that our government never requires military support, is it our stability?
Click to expand...

That's the way it works in the European Union and in many other countries of the world aswell. It's not unique to the USA at all.
 
Some of the other reasons beyond our oath are:

1. The Constitution itself, which is the conerstone of our liberty and we know it.

2. US Armed Forces are all volunteer and composed of free men and women who have chosen to serve their country. This encourages a professional attitude and a dedication to the Nation (as does our history).

3. The very stucture of the Department of Defense and the President's position as Commander in Chief legally and morally places the US Armed Forces under civilian control.

4. We read history. There are many, many bad examples of what happens when a country's military meddles in politics. We don't want to go there - that way lies madness.

I agree, we are not unique, nor should we be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top