In the United States, the Secretary of Defense, who is the chief commander
of the entire armed forces of the country (second to only the president)
cannot himself (or herself) be a military officer in active duty. As
wikipedia states it, "ensuring civilian control of the military, an
individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven
years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."

The rationale for this in political theory is that this is a necessity
in a working democracy because it lessens the power of the military in
civilian government (thus ultimately lessening the chances of a military
coup.)

However, reading the requisites for the office of the President itself,
there is no mention of active military duty at all. As I see it, there's
no reason why a military officer in active duty could not be elected the
President of the United States.

This feels to me as being in drastic conflict with the principle of
civilian control of the military. As the Secretary of Defense answers
to the President, it would seem like a conflict of interest if the
President were a military officer (while the Secretary is not allowed
to be one, for the abovementioned reasons.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message