Trump abrogating defense troop strength responsibilities to DoD

President Trump, the "Tool-in Chief," has decided to allow the Defense Department to decide troop strength responsibilities in Afghanistan. Unlike previous administrations, Trump has decided that as Commander-in-Chief, he won't involve himself in what has been traditionally an ultimate decision of the President.

More wasted young lives headed for Dover AFB's mortuary.

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

CnC has the final say so.

What Trump is doing is following in the footsteps of President Reagan, not micromanaging any wars like LBJ and Obama did refusing to listen to his military advisers.

CnC Trump is following the law, the National Security Act passed by Congress in 1947.

Note: (My personal opinion the NSA of 1947 gives to much civilian control over the military during war time.)

Secretary of Defense, General "Mad Dog" Mattis" will give Trump the military options to be taken and Trump will listen to his generals and admirals unlike Obama and make the final decisions that will be taken.

Our military are happy as clams that no longer will Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett will be violating the military chain of command and running our wars and having civilians with no military experience micromanaging our wars with political correctness.

Re: the troop surge in Afghanistan being requested by the military.

Here's what the military community is saying.

Al Qaeda fled from Afghanistan in 2002 and took up refuge in Northern Pakistan and Yemen and the African Horn and were unable to conduct any operations outside of Yemen and the African Horn until Obama became President.

The Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan by late 2002 and got their butts whooped big time and fled to Northern Pakistan to lick their wounds.
When the Taliban noticed that the political left in America were making the same mistakes that were made during the Vietnam War by back stabbing the American soldier in Iraq the Taliban started returning to Afghanistan. Our enemies always look at our President's approval ratings and act accordingly.

Obama becomes CnC and with in the first three years of Obama's first term as POTUS more American troops were killed in Afghanistan than during the entire eight years under President Bush.

1/2 have of American troops casualties can be traced back to Obama's political correct Rules of Engagement (ROE) that favored the enemy and caused American troops to bleed and die in Afghanistan in the name of liberal political correctness.

By 2016 under Obama Al Qaeda was back in Afghanistan. Then ISIS appeared in Afghanistan under Obama's watch !!!

The military community is saying with Obama and political correctness out of the game plan maybe we can defeat the Taliban again like we did back in 2002.

Is it really worth it ?

Why not going back to when America was great and won wars using "crush and bolt" ?

Go in and kill as many Muslim jihadist capable and carpet bomb Afghanistan and "bolt" leaving a message if you allow any Muslim terrorist to use Afghanistan to train and operate from,...we will be back.

 

He does not want to be bothered by anything that sounds like hard work!!

 

Remind me. When was the last time the United States won a war?

Cheers,
Jason Bourne

 

Before adopting the National Security Act of 1947 that gave to much civilian control over the military.

Maybe we need to revisit the NSA ?

Abolish the Department of Defense and return to having the War Department and the Department of the Navy.

Abolish the U.S. Air Force as a separate military service and return to when the Air Force comes under the U.S. Army. (U.S.Army Air Forces.)

Have the U.S. Marine Corps going back to it's roots as not a separate military service but part of the U.S. Navy again, the way it was before 1947.

 

So basically, forget all the lessons learned in WW II.

 

RE: Trump abrogating defense troop strength responsibilities to DoD
※→ Jason Bourne, et al,

I'm pretty sure this is not an "abrogation" of authority; but rather a "delegation" of authority.

​

(COMMENT)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) comes from the Congress [versus an "Declaration of War" (DoW) (Article I, Section 8)]. This is different from the Responsibility for the conduct and military outcome. The DoW sets the political conditions, were as the AUMF provides the resources to prosecute the furtherance of diplomacy through other means.

War is a term used to describe some level of engagement. It is not a useful military term for conflicts coming into the 21st Century. While The President may delegate measure of authority, The President can never delegate the responsibility for the outcome of engagements under the American AUMF.

(COMMENT)

Again, the concept behind the use of phrases like "winning" or "losing" wars is archaic. In Vietnam, the US achieved a record of "decisive military victories" for a sustained period of time and across the entire landscape involved. However, the US did not achieve the political outcomes, goals and objectives it sought; a diplomatic failure.

Relative to the case of Iraq, the concepts of "Victory in Iraq" was one thing, but shifted after the end of major combat operations ceased.

​

"War is merely a continuation of Policy by other means." (General Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian Army 1832). To answer the question, one has to define the "Policy" that is being achieved; and was it successful.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Every time I hear a politician say, "I'll listen to the generals" I cringe - And yes, both dems and the GOP have said it.
When did a general ever say "I want fewer troops and want to de-escalate"?
We have civilian control of our military for a good reason - however that requires an informed, involved commander-in-chief, which we do not have now.

 

Iraq. Defeated them in about a year. Destroyed the Republican Guard, forced their dictator into hiding, he was then captured a few years later, his own people executed him.

Body count: 1,000,000 Iraqis
4,500 US personnel

 

The troops did their job extremely well - unfortunately, the Bush White House had no end game and didn't follow the Powell Doctrine of crushing the military but leaving the government structure in place. So was it a win? 2 trillion dollars later ... maybe.

 

You're comparing apples and microwaves though. The war itself was won by the US in an easy fashion. What happened after the war (rebuilding) and why we were there in the first place are irrelevant to his question. He asked when we won the last war.

 

Yeah it was so much better under Obama, where we had a limp wristed civilian deciding military matters.

You know, like having to wait until one of our guys actually got hit before we could return fire.

The POTUS is letting the SME's make the call, and somehow you're spinning that into a negative.

TDS on full display.

 

Exactly! The OP needs to realize, Mad Dog Mattis is our Secretary of Offense. Everything is FINALLY under control.

 

For how long? Mattis is already giving Trump the side-eye in Cabinet meetings.

 

Well seeing as though Mad Dog has more military experience than our last 6 Presidents combined (I'm obviously just guessing) I think he's plenty qualified to run our operations. The President can override anytime he wants.

 

They hate the idea of the military being able to do it's job.

 

Well he does have a plan to kill everyone he comes into contact with.

 

He keeps other people awake at night

 

The living incarnation of Smedley Butler.

 

The left wing's response to Obama having no military experience was always "The commander in chief is supposed to be the CIVILIAN leader. Let the generals do their jobs". Welp, we're letting the BEST of the BEST do his and they are WHINING! lol

 

It's what they do.

They're whining now because they want to be able to whine about the military being ineffective, and Mattis is taking their favorite binkie away from them.

 

Well then, wax poetic for us on Obama's qualifications in military matters.

He's such a military genius, we could only shoot back after we got hit. We could be pinned down for hours and had to wait it out.

**** Obama. He's the reason we lost so many of our brothers.

 

That's what happened.

We won WW ll with having only the Department of War (Army) and the Department of the Navy (Navy / Marine Corps)

If we won and it wasn't broken, why fix it ?

FDR and his military chiefs of staff didn't micromanage the war. They only set the time lines of implementing War Plan Orange in the Pacific and War Plan Rainbow in Europe.


In the Pacific, Plan Orange was used to defeat Japan. Plan Orange was written by two Marine Corps Majors and adopted by the Navy and Army in 1924.

There were two commanders in the Pacific during WW ll. Gen. MacArthur who was in charge of the South Western Pacific theatre of the war and Admiral Nimitz who was in charge of the Central Pacific theatre of war.

The U.S. Marines 1st Mar Div and 2nd Mar Div. came under MacArthur's control while the Marines 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Mar Div's. came under Nimitz control with Marine General Howland Smith in charge of the amphibious assaults.

Today the way our military is organized, WW ll in the Pacific would only have one commander and that commander could be an Air Force General in charge of the naval war and amphibious landings or a woman general from the Quartermasters Corps.

How did we end up with the National Security Act of 1947 and a Department of Defense ?

We listened to the Germans.

After WW ll all German officers above company grade were debriefed and all were asked the same questions one being "Why did Germany lose the war ?"

The answers were all about the same.

A corporal ran the war who refused to listen to his generals. A freaking corporal micromanaging the war.

That Germany didn't fight a total war until it was to late (1943)

That the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine should have been under one commander kinda like having a Department of Defense and a Secretary of Defense.

 

Obama is still way better than the so-called president we have now.

 

Yeah? What were his successes?