Should congress or the president have more say in directing war strategy?
War strategies and their administratives
Since war strategies are sets of tactical intrusion design to gain military advantage as a mean to fulfill the end of policies to have congress decide on them can sometimes be a disadvantage. The deployment of ground forces into different regions is the result of a strategy which at most times will not wait for congress approval. Once congress has given permission to engage in military combat, directing war strategies becomes the commander in chief and members of his cabinet responsibility. He must then make sure while formulating these strategies, he does not disobey international laws. Though it is understood that we have no international government to enforce international laws, our country should not take advantage of this absence. Any failure to obey these laws will bring about protests, and congress revocation of the strategy employed.
A president secret weapon are his cabinet members. Therefore, the president selection of Robert Gates who is the secretary of defense is part of the cabinet member who oversight war strategies. He is also a contributor to these strategies, and thereby has a big stack in decision making process. He is also partly responsible for delivering the tactical attributes of the strategies employed. One must also keep in mind that there are different levels of military strategies, which can range from the president cabinet members to a single soldier on the line of fire.
Military strategies are prospects that are designed to look forward in order to overcome uncertainties. These strategies derived from the bottom up first before there are disputed on the discussion table of war. As unapparent it maybe, military combatants are very often the ones to come up with the problem at first hand, until it becomes a grand idea. The solution proposed by cabinet members such as the generals are the result suggested by high rank officers. In a sense, a bottom up relationship must exist for big ideas to take flight.
The strategies that are passing down to military offices can sometimes be implemented for reasons pertaining to Safety, Enemy Surrender, Retreat, Geneva Convention laws, Civilian Casualties and so on. Therefore, whatever happens at the inconvenience battle ground is not always due to an order received from high rank officers. We must then look at every occurrence that has occurred on the ground level, as a strategy deriving first from a company division acting accordingly, until proven otherwise.
I believe that all major strategies that can lead to massive death, and destruction should derive from an intelligence source. Which mean some level of certainty must be proven before any action is projected. We cannot afford to make mistakes that leads to massive destruction. Our intelligence having fail us in the past should not be a discouragement but instead a mistake which we can learn from. Although we have been wrong before, our dedication to apply diplomacy to our conflicts can help us notice our mistakes, and thereafter reorganize our ideas for better outcomes.
Strategies deriving from intelligence are slow processes which allow us enough time to carefully examine their credibility. Using that time to our advantage, if we try, we can eliminate all doubt or at least try so that we extract the truth from the intelligence received.
It is clear that foreign policy is going to be a big issue, and as we have seen, Hillary already made her first trip to China discussing our state of economic survival. In that case, how this administration conduct it’s policies will determine how the world will see us. We can only hope that they DO NOT apply constraint that will leave doors close for bilateral talk.
Not only is communication the first step to diplomacy, but it’s also the most basic form of civilization. A nuclear Iran is more dangerous without bilateral talk than it is when we’re communicating. We must know their intent at all times; although intelligence can help us access that intent, without communicating it's not possible. Knowing these possibilities, I think it is only fair to say that congress should not have any say in strategy development after a war has been decided on. Congress should only intervene when international laws have been broken or when the citizens demand an explanation for war crime scommitted in behalf of our country.