[Bleh32]

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day, and I was curious what you all thought about if a president declares war, if he should have to fight in it?

[cjav0]

uuuh this is just about the dumbest poll ever, congrats. Not worthy of an answer.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Actual fighting? No, but he should obviously be doing sort of a general job (AKA commander in chief and all that) so technically this means that he is fighting, he's just leading the fighting and the operations in general. He's the boss, you can't expect him to just go into the front with gun in hand, he's too busy trying to lead and organize the troops. This isn't Rome Total War, you know. :lol:

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 07 April 2009 - 04:26 PM

[jackyseto123]

The President does not declare war, Congress does. The President however, is the Commander in Chief for all armed forces, which means he's like a General. Most Generals won't actually charge at the Taliben and blast them with his 1911, but merely sit behind a desk and think.

Besides, he's too old to serve.

[Loki Ire]

Assuming you're talking about the United States, you should know that the President cannot declare war; only Congress can do that. The President may, however, invoke the War Powers Act to order the armed forces to engage in conflic for 60 days without the approval of Congress.

As to whether the President should have to serve, he certainly does. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces in keeping with the tradition in the US of keeping the military well within the control of the civilian population. In his role as Commander-in-Chief, the President fights as any other senior military leader fights in a modern war: from the confines of a safe, comfortable room far from the field of battle. In modern combat, having four and five star generals - let alone the President - on the ground would create far more chaos and disorder than it would ever be help and would drain vast pools of resources preserving their lives.

[Lamuella]

the president's role in wartime is to be commander in chief, the top of the strategic ladder. You don't put the people making strategic decisions on the front lines, because you need strategic continuity.

[Arkantos]

Bleh32, on Apr 7 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day, and I was curious what you all thought about if a president declares war, if he should have to fight in it?

The President cannot declare war. Only Congress can.

[Delta1212]

Putting a leader at the front line with his troops can be a big morale booster in many cases. This must be weighed against the potential effect of said leader being killed. Some people are too critical to the success of a war effort to risk because the cohesion they create is more important to success than fairness, and success is really all that matters in a war.

Incidentally, it probably would have been a major boon to the war effort if Bush had to go in on the front lines with the invasion force.

[Arkantos]

Delta1212, on Apr 7 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Putting a leader at the front line with his troops can be a big morale booster in many cases. This must be weighed against the potential effect of said leader being killed. Some people are too critical to the success of a war effort to risk because the cohesion they create is more important to success than fairness, and success is really all that matters in a war.

Incidentally, it probably would have been a major boon to the war effort if Bush had to go in on the front lines with the invasion force.

That, my friend, would be a major boon to everybody.

[Loki Ire]

Bleh32, on Apr 7 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day, and I was curious what you all thought about if a president declares war,...

I sincerely hope you and your friends are not past 8th grade in an American school. Half the foreign-born folks on this board are chiming in with the obvious Constitutional catch.

[JEB90]

I'm having mental images of FDR rolling himself ashore in Normandy, screaming "Follow Me!"... until his wheelchair gets stuck in the sand.


Although, I assume this means we'd have to have run Obama through OCS (during transition?), which would have been amusing.

[jackyseto123]

JEB90, on Apr 8 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

I'm having mental images of FDR rolling himself ashore in Normandy, screaming "Follow Me!"... until his wheelchair gets stuck in the sand.


Although, I assume this means we'd have to have run Obama through OCS (during transition?), which would have been amusing.

Make a picture or drawing of that and I will give you an lol.

[shoe the fifth]

even assuming that the president is able to declare war (he isn't, as has already been stated) due to the minimun age requirements to run for president (I believe it to be 35, but I'm not 100% certain) and the fact that most don't run until they have passed that by a decent margin they would probably be little more than dead weight on the front lines.

[mastab]

Bleh32, on Apr 7 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day, and I was curious what you all thought about if a president declares war, if he should have to fight in it?

Abstained. I agree that he'd be a hypocrite to not be willing to risk his life or the lives of his children in the war while expecting others to do it. I don't think an old man would be very effective on the battle field and being shot at might decrease his ability to preside, however.

shoe the fifth, on Apr 7 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

even assuming that the president is able to declare war (he isn't, as has already been stated) due to the minimun age requirements to run for president (I believe it to be 35, but I'm not 100% certain) and the fact that most don't run until they have passed that by a decent margin they would probably be little more than dead weight on the front lines.

Since when does the US not let the presidents start wars or declare wars?

This post has been edited by mastab: 07 April 2009 - 05:42 PM

[Delta1212]

Since they're "conflicts" if the President does it.

[capitalC]

Bleh32, on Apr 7 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day, and I was curious what you all thought about if a president declares war, if he should have to fight in it?

Obviously not.

It sounds kinda nice, but seriously now, it ain't practical.

This post has been edited by capitalC: 07 April 2009 - 05:48 PM

[Chris of Khi]

mastab, on Apr 7 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

Since when does the US not let the presidents start wars or declare wars?

QFT- America has by and large allowed the president to declare war unofficially. The only war with a declaration from congress was the war of 1812, which Ironically the president was completely against. The modern role has evolved to one which allows the president to act as our cheif diplomat and the traditional "Commander in Chief " role. He leads from his office, asking him to serve is like asking a congressman to serve. It is both impractical and a Desacration of his status as your president. Respect his power and authority and stand by his decisions.

[Loki Ire]

mastab, on Apr 7 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Since when does the US not let the presidents start wars or declare wars?

That would be since the beginning of the country when the United States Constitution was ratified. Article I Sec 8 specifically states that Congress shall have the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water".

Delta1212, on Apr 7 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

Since they're "conflicts" if the President does it.

The War Powers Act of 1973 limits the President to engaging in military actions without the consent of Congress for a maximum of 60 days. After that Congress must provide authorization. Congress provided several authorizations for the wars/conflicts/parades/whatever in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Chris of Khi, on Apr 7 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

QFT- America has by and large allowed the president to declare war unofficially. The only war with a declaration from congress was the war of 1812, which Ironically the president was completely against. The modern role has evolved to one which allows the president to act as our cheif diplomat and the traditional "Commander in Chief " role. He leads from his office, asking him to serve is like asking a congressman to serve. It is both impractical and a Desacration of his status as your president. Respect his power and authority and stand by his decisions.

Incorrect.

The US Congress has declared war 5 times in the history of this country, not once as you stated. Congress declared war for the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII.

In addition, the US Congress has provided authorization for military actions numerous times. The "Quasi-War", First and Second Barbary Wars, raid of slave traffic in 1820, redress for attack on US Navy vessel in 1859, intervention during the Russian Civil war in 1918, Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 1964, Lebanon 1983, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, and Iraq 2002.

This post has been edited by Loki Ire: 07 April 2009 - 05:59 PM

[Quiziotle]

Chris of Khi, on Apr 7 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

QFT- America has by and large allowed the president to declare war unofficially. The only war with a declaration from congress was the war of 1812, which Ironically the president was completely against. The modern role has evolved to one which allows the president to act as our cheif diplomat and the traditional "Commander in Chief " role. He leads from his office, asking him to serve is like asking a congressman to serve. It is both impractical and a Desacration of his status as your president. Respect his power and authority and stand by his decisions.

Technically, it is up to Congress to declare war upon foreign nations due to the "War Powers" clause of the Constitution. That said, Congress also formally declared war in the Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, World War I and World War II.

Anyhow, the President should most definitely not be required to "fight" in wars which the United States is involved with. As Commander-in-Chief, it is the President's duty to command the armed forces of the United States - not to fight with them. Mandating that the President physically fight battles would be impractical due to issues which would inevitably arise in the chain-of-command, and could potentially prolong the amount of time required to make important decisions or pass legislation.

[Chris of Khi]

Not true... Only once has the Congress given an official declaration of war. You are wrong. I would rather that the president follow that avenue, through congress, but they simply go around congress. C'est la vie. Get over it.