In short, the above law provides that the Secretary of Defense (currently Robert Gates) is the one who has the authority to order the assignment of forces to combat (i.e. deployment). He must obtain the approval of the President to ensure that the number of forces he intends to deploy fit within the "force structure" (i.e. number of forces) presribed by the President.
So, while Obama agreed to commit 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He gave no specific order to deploy troops. Secretary Gates ordered the deployment based upon the recommendations submitted to him by the Secretary of the Army (civilian) and the Chief of Staff of the Army (military).
The above law describes the management of deployments of members.
Did you admit to having never served?
Obama can delegate the authority to Gates to send troops to Afghanistan but ultimately as Commander in Chief he is responsible for that order not Gates, that’s why it says he must obtain the approval of the president, he is getting his orders from the Commander in Chief.
Obama ordered 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, it was Gates job to make it happen.
Many civilians don’t understand the difference between authority and responsibility in the military. Obama as Commander in Chief is responsible for every order given in the military, everyone below him gets their authority from him that’s why they call it the Chain of Command.
Consolidating my response here to several of your posts. I have read what you gave me. And I am tremendously thankful to you for posting the references. You are one of the only people who disagrees with me on this who is citing the legal sources. What you have provided is far more than Dwight Sullivan’s entire blog was willing to provide me. Regardless of how we come out in the final analysis, whether to agree or to disagree, I have to respect the factual responses you have given and admire the epistemology that prompts you to give them. You’re a good guy, Buckeye, and what we disagree doesn’t change that a bit.
I also appreciated your input and help on coming up with an apology on this thread. I think you saw there was a misunderstanding in progress and wanted it cleared up because you do care about fairness and about people. Again, nothing we disagree about keeps me from seeing that basic quality of your character. Thank you for being who you are.
I think the conflict between our views regards what it means that the SecDef must have the approval of the President. What you cited was statute. When the words “shall” or “must” are used in statutes it is an imperative. So the SecDef is not legally allowed to do the things described in that section without first having the approval of the President. The authority for the SecDef to do those things is legally dependent on the approval of a valid President.
So the statute itself makes the authority for the chain of command to deploy troops totally dependent on the approval of the President. How, then, can Judge Lind say that the approval of a valid President is “irrelevant” to whether one particular link in the chain of command (brigade commanders) had the authority to issue combat force deployment orders?
She talks about Congress having authority over the military - but the authority Congress gave the SecDef is expressly dependent on a valid President’s approval, and the authority for the chain of command within the military structure is dependent on the approval of the SecDef. So Congress’ oversight of the military does not CONTRADICT or SUPERSEDE the President as the source for authority down the chain of command; it actually codifies it - at least in regard to combat authorization, which is what is at issue with Lakin’s deployment orders.