On 1/20/2013 1:14 PM, 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 above-mentioned reasons.)

Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an 
active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.

Federal law prohibits military members (whether enlisted or 
commissioned) from engaging in partisan political activity during duty 
hours, or for using their official status towards any partisan political 
goal.  It would be completely impossible for any general to mount an 
effective campaign for the presidency during his spare time.

And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can 
issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible 
(such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message