On 1/20/2013 11:14 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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.)
>
Hmm. Except that this is kind of a defacto impossibility. An "active" 
officer has duties and requirements which would directly conflict with 
the ability to hold the office, which, if held, would, in turn, contains 
duties and responsibilities that would conflict with any 
actions/duties/etc. that they would need to perform as an officer. Its a 
bit unclear how any one could even get by with trying to do that, never 
mind find anyone in the chain of command of the military itself, which 
would allow it.

Post a reply to this message