Right now there is a war going on and there obviously will be in the future. There is a lot of controversy whether we should go to war or not. I think that the people who are actually going to fight the war should decide whether or not they should go to war, instead of the president. There should be a vote where everyone in the army can vote either to go to war or not. If we dont go to war we save lives, but if we do we also could save lives. Most of the lives lost would be of those in the army so the army should decide to serve there country if 100% needed or not if it isnt that needed.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
This would be a tough sell no matter how you proposed it. Under this model it would be possible to inflitrate the military with enough nay sayers to oppose every war or load the military with supporters to go into a war unneccesarily. Also, some events don't lend themselves to having enough time to get a vote in order to protect ourselves from invasion.
Of course it depends upon which sector of the military would make the decisions. And under what circumstances. A military commander must at times decide to sacrifice a percentage of his troops to a military victory. If the troops to be sacrificed were given the vote I wonder how popular some necessary military decisions might become.It is a basic policy of military organizations that the troops must follow orders for the benefit of the organization. When personal survival is on the line a democratic system might have very interesting results.
Doing this would be a lot like getting third graders to dictate class schedules. Not that I ever agreed with this war, but the people in charge of the military (everyone BUT the guy at the top) know what they're doing. We don't like hippies and environmentalists design nuclear reactors for the same reason - they have a lot to say, but very little knowledge.
After going to both Desert Storm and Iraq, I would have to say this idea will not work. I would estimate that 95% of my comrades didn't want to go to either place. Would you vote to go to some place where people are trying to kill you? I also have to take umbrage with the post comparing us to third graders. I believe an earn Masters Degree with a 3.65 GPA allows me a little more respect than that.
You plan to give the military the right to go to war (or not to go to war) independently of the elected government. That is setting up the military as a separate sovereign entity, it can go to war, depose a government, and run a country without you having any say - though presumably you would still have to pay for this in taxes.
For those who remember their British History, for centuries the one big hold parliament had over the Monarch was that parliament had to approve taxes to pay for the army. No taxes, no army. Take that away and who controls the army controls everything.
Watch out, the next country the military might decide to take over could be your's!
The military should NEVER be allowed to determine whether or not we go to war. That is a Huge conflict of interest. The factors in making a decision are so broad and would escape the reasoning potential of most citizens of the United States, let alone military servicepersons. I'll speak just for myself! I have a hard time amassing enough information to intelligently vote for my local representatives. There is sooo much propaganda and too little availablility of unbiased facts. To make an informed decision on whether or not we go to war is a team effort and I am very sure the military is currently well represented in the process. Are Generals biased to go to war more often than not? I don't know. I can't even make an intelligent decision about that one lack of fact.
The simple answer is not to join the military, if you are against war. Otherwise, there must be discipline regardless of the individual's opinion.