Military Interfering in Politics

[Exarch]

Recently, especially during the Obama presidency, there've been some Generals who've been a lot more vocal about their civilian leaders than they would've otherwise been, the height of which was General McChrystal criticizing the President.
Understand though, that once a soldier becomes a General/Admiral or becomes one of 'the brass' they automatically have to deal with politicians/defence committees/defence budgets and so they're forced either out of necessity or otherwise to play the "Game of Thrones" in Washington/Beijing/London/Berlin whereever.
History's shown though, that military leaders have had issues, whether private or public with their civilian leaders from Lincoln and General McClellan to Truman and General Macarthur.

It's not just an isolated american case either, a few months ago, a Chinese General opined that Beijing ought to stop buying or dump a few US Treasury bonds in retaliation for the Obama administration pushing through an arms sale to Taiwan (ROC); whether or not, that was what the Hu Administration wanted to let out is up for debate, as are the 2009 leaks from the White House about whether or not to 'surge' Afghanistan.

My question is, to what extent should military leaders decide policy in your country?
if you live in a democracy, are you comfortable with an unelected representative decide policy as opposed to strategy?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

unelected civil servants already decide a lot of policy.

they are, after all, the executive.

[Exarch]

unelected civil servants already decide a lot of policy.

they are, after all, the executive.

do u mean bureacrats?

there's a difference between soldiers and bureacrats; the public tends to listen and respect one more than the other

[Stavroforos]

The military should never do anything more than offer opinions for military matters, and even for military matters they should restrict themselves to opinions, as they are run by civilians.

And also, military leaders generally seem to offer a pretty mixed bag as far as political leaders are concerned. Washington was a good political leader, but Eisenhower was not very exceptional, and in the UK Wellington was pretty terrible as PM.

[xcorps]

Do you mean specifically active duty military leaders?

If so, they should have absolutely no say-so whatsoever in policy making.

A retire military leader, on the other hand...

[Armenum]

It's difficult to say, depends on the military person. I believe though it's better for a politician to have experience working in other countries, or having a worldly experience before coming to office, rather than just serving/commanding in a war. Must not forget that war changes the psychology of people involved, even if not noticed from the surface.

[xcorps]

It's difficult to say, depends on the military person. I believe though it's better for a politician to have experience working in other countries, or having a worldly experience before coming to office, rather than just serving/commanding in a war. Must not forget that war changes the psychology of people involved, even if not noticed from the surface.

I think you are underestimating the breadth of experiance a military career gives.

[Armenum]

I think you are underestimating the breadth of experiance a military career gives.

I recognize the advantages it may bring, but must also recognize the disadvantages. But most importantly must compare it with a person who garners a worldly perspective through education and experience. A military perspective vs. a more worldly/cohesive one.

[Farnan]

I recognize the advantages it may bring, but must also recognize the disadvantages. But most importantly must compare it with a person who garners a worldly perspective through education and experience. A military perspective vs. a more worldly/cohesive one.

Umm...

You are aware that to be a general/admiral in the US you must have a Master's Degree, right?

Many have PHDs though or multiple masters degrees (Gen Mchrystal had two masters and served on the Council of Foreign Relations, General Petraeus has a PHD from Princeton, Admiral Mullen has a Masters and graduated from a management problem from Harvard, General Casey got his bachelor's a Georgetown, a master's from the University of Denver (highest ranking school for international relations) and served on the Atlantic Council, General Conway has a master's, and General Schwartz also has a master's and was a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and MIT).

So they are very well educated.

Experience? Umm.... To think that they don't have experience is like thing Louis Armstrong didn't have practice on the trumpet

[Treize]

No but they should lobby more. Only our air force knows how to lobby and how to get politicians on their pocket. The navy is horrible at it.

[Exarch]

No but they should lobby more. Only our air force knows how to lobby and how to get politicians on their pocket. The navy is horrible at it.

there are enough lobbyists in Washington, or any given democratic capitol;

anyhoo, a good film to highlight the powerplay between the White House and the JCOS would be Costner's "7 Days".