Commander in Chief. The head guy in charge. The one who runs the military every day. The Congress wrote the UCMJ. That's rules and regulations. The Congress does not write every unit's personnel policies, unit rotation schedules, etc.

So typical of your average wingnut's fear of and inability to understand or resolve complexity or seeming ambiguity, and reacting to it by retreating into a flat earth all or nothing view of reality.

Here's a clue: Congress sets the rules, and the CIC has to follow them in running the military. Congress can change the rules, and the CIC has to comply. Is that too complex a concept to wrap your head around, as opposed to cookies and milk and comic books?

Two most excellent comments.

That the whole reason those safeguards were put in the Constitution in the first place is because our founders had enough experience to realize that without them, precisely the sort of idiocy we're seeing (with the President thinking he's got his own personal Army and is accountable to nobody) was inevitable.

Excellent post. Quite excellent.

was ended by Little v. Bareme (1804), which is settled law.

Could "micromanagement" by the Congress produce absurd results?

Certainly.

But there are plenty of valid, constitutional actions that can produce absurd results. (I'm sure everybody can think of some favorite examples.)

The president's powers as C-in-C are no more and no less than those of first general and first admiral (see Federalist 69). In that role, he/she is still subject to the laws passed by Congress (although, using his/her other powers, he/she can attempt to veto the passage of such laws). And if the president orders a commissioned officer to violate a U.S. law, then the officer is legally required to disobey that order, and is legally liable if he/she follows an illegal order.

Empower the Congress (and only the Congress)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline

prescribed by Congress;

To put it in terms that might be more familiar to our trolls: The Army serves at the pleasure of the Congress and the President in his role as CinC also answers to a Congress that is free to order him to stand down. That they don't have the balls to do so is a separate problem but if your going to swear an oath to defend the Constitution perhaps you should read it first.

Do you suppose Fred believes that the Army and Marine Corp currently do not keep track of were they deploy their units? Or for how long?

He could probably recite his DD214 in less than a minute.

Aw hell, go for it Hornet Man.

Tilde Boy never served. That's why he suddenly disappeared from the conversation.

MOS means Mantra On Signal

In any case, how does mandating servicemembers be treated as human beings constitute "showboating"?

Self-centered pricks often assume that other people are only nice because they're getting something out of it. Conversely, they assume that spiteful, greedy people are "just being honest."

Not saying this is Hornet's ish, but I do think it has something to do with the perceived "seriousness" of the neocons.

But I loathe the idea of 535 showboating congressmen setting military personnel policy.

Sadly, that's how the Constitution (which you took an oath to uphold, remember) is written. Congress is empowered to impose whatever rules it sees fit or necessary upon the conduct and use of the armed forces. The President is bound to work within those parameters.

In any case, how does mandating servicemembers be treated as human beings constitute "showboating"? Especially given the photo-op antics the Commander in Chief has undertaken using the Services over the last four years?

He's furiously trying to find out what an MOS is, and what a DD214 is. He'll be back in a few minutes.

Back up your assertion or clarify. That will make it so that one can respond.

************

@(~~~~)

I think you are implying that Glenn claims only active or retired military can comment on military matters. If so, can you show where he makes that claim?

Commander in chief. The guy who runs the show day-to-day. Who tells units where to go, what to do, when to do it, etc.

Please tell me where I'm wrong?

"Commander in Chief", not "Absolute Master and Dictator".

The Constitution of the United States gives primacy to the Congress to dictate rules and regulations for the military. The President, as Commander in Chief, is as obligated to operate within those parameters as the Services are to obey the UCMJ.

At least that's how its supposed to work. Then again, ideally we wouldn't have a messianic headcase sitting in the Oval Office right now.

Best eject now, before you crash and burn.

This is an excerpt of what Senator Webb read before the Senate on July 10th:

"They wrote me today. I’ll read portions of this letter: “On behalf of the 368,000 members of the Military Officers Association, I am writing to express our support for your amendment. The MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect the most precious military asset, all volunteer force, for having to bear such a disproportionate share of wartime sacrifice.” If we are not better stewards of our troops – this is the president of the MOAA, Vice Admiral Ryan, United States Navy Retired, saying this “if we are not better stewards of our troops and their families in the future than we have been in the recent past, we believe strongly we will be putting the all volunteer force at unacceptable risk.” I would submit to the President and this body that this is not the kind of a statement that would be made from a group of 368,000 military officers unless they believed in the constitutionality and the propriety of what we are attempting to do."