[fogarty]

Part of the problem here is the ominous discord between national strategy and operations we see here. Certainly, the national strategy is set by civilian control - as is constitutionally mandated. However we are wise to consider the lessons learned from Vietnam: when civilians tell the military not only what the objectives are, but the exact manner in which to obtain those objectives, it increases risk. It also destroys the principles of initiative, boldness, and decentralized command & control - the fundamentals of successful manuever warfare.

This idea is in some of the basic theories that Sun Tzu espoused; it appears we have not yet learnt them well.

Another strawman often brought up is that we can achieve victory through the vague notion of 'informational dominance'. What does that mean? As a Marine, I know that informational dominance does little if you do not have the means at your disposal to destroy the enemies' will to fight. History has shown that when it comes down to a battle between hostile wills, massing of firepower and arms upon the enemy is usually required. This can be achieved in different ways - but mere 'information dominance' does not guarantee anything.

[CIB-173RDABN]

A well presented and thought out response. I will agree with you that it presents a major problem when the civilian authority attempts to micro-manage a military operation.

Having said that, I still support having elected civilians in control over the military.

Someone once said war was too important to leave to the Generals. The military may become too focus on one aspect of a conflict (military action) and either not be aware of, or care about any other aspect.

There are some ineffiencies with a republic form of government, but that sometimes works in our favor (and of course sometimes works against us.)