Checks and Balances
•
by ligtreb
Let's make one thing clear before I begin: I respect both Harrison Richardson and NXNW. Both have spent countless hours working to make our country great. Consider the following hypotheticals, neither of which is currently happening, but I'm using to make a point:
1) We have a bad President
2) We have a bad CJCS (the head of our military).
In the first scenario, the President could be impeached by Congress or removed from power by not being re-elected. In the second scenario, there's no method of removing a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's not appointed by the President, not confirmed by Congress and not voted on by the people.
Ideally, the President and CJCS should come to an agreement before any major battle plans. But if the President and CJCS disagree, the President should have the final call. Not only was the President elected by the people, but he has access to the buttons needed to wage war, peace and foreign policy.
Again, let me be clear: I'm very pro-military. I'm a proud Marine, I've written articles encouraging people to sign up for the military and have spent tons of shouts and party gold advertising DoD Orders.
If the President doesn't have the final say over where the military fights and our foreign policy, he's nothing more than a button pusher. A button pusher with thousands of people who voted for him.
The CJCS is and should be one of the most important jobs in the country. A President should always consider what the JCS has to say. The CJCS often has months of experience in the military and planning for big battles.
This is a game we're playing though -- and the CJCS isn't an official in-game position. This game was designed to give the President the power to wage war and determine foreign policy.
Let's look at what happened yesterday. Despite NXNW's objections, several branches of the military were deployed to Rhone Alps. We won every major battle in China, South Africa and Europe.
NXNW is right more often than he is wrong. But on this day, he was wrong and Harrison Richardson was right. Look at this thread. Leaders from Spain, Poland and EDEN have thanked us for our help. We didn't put up the damage we could've had our whole military been deployed, but the battle in Rhone Alps was so close that EDEN may have lost without our help. Our relations with Spain, Poland and EDEN are stronger today than they were yesterday because of this.
For this country to be at its best, we need a strong military with knowledgeable leaders. However, even they need some oversight -- no part of our country should operate without checks and balances.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
First. Let me know your thoughts. Stay reasonable please, I'm trying not to get too worked up about this.
Gotta agree.
Well written and well presented mechanics based argument
you make me complete.
Good article Ligt. You always have a great take on the situation.
couldn't agree more
Checks and balances is all about accountability, and the JCS should be held accountable for things they do wrong. Same thing goes for the President.
"there's no method of removing a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's not appointed by the President, not confirmed by Congress and not voted on by the people.
"
I situation requiring to be fixed.
couldn't agree more x2
I <3 you
o7
Oh yeah and vote + sub
not a bad read
Very good article and I agree. However, we really need to field more viable candidates when it comes to the POTUS election. This month, we had the bad luck of GJ getting struck down by the RL bug so we lost the only other good, solid competitor in the presidential race. For a president to be considered truly voted in by the people, we need choices, not a 'this is the only viable candidate' like how Congress is voted in.
Kell Draygo, I'd agree -- I hope to see a minimum of two good, solid candidates in each Presidential election.
ligtreb is smarter than all of us.
VOTE + SUB
PLS do it back !
Croatia -beautiful country
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/croatia-beautiful-country-show-to-the-world--1376296/1/20">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/croa[..]1/20
Hail EDEN !
One slight flaw, there is a method for removing a bad CJCS.
THE JCS would remove him.
my sentiments.
Rod Damon -- I thought of that. What if it's a bad JCS?
(Again, I know that's incredibly unlikely. But it's a hypothetical).
The President should really leave the military planning to the military leaders. Otherwise we wind up with situations like the invasion of the eUK.
If we have a bad CJCS as well as a bad JCS, then I would expect officers to resign from the military and soldiers to request discharges, thus leading to no more military.
@Kell Draygo: And assuming prefect information isn't held to be true in your model?
Brilliant Lig.. As always.
My eyes have been open to the light! What a GREAT ARTICLE. Freaking shouted and voted.
Also, this may be too early to say but...Ligtreb4POTUS?
>If we have a bad CJCS as well as a bad JCS, then I would expect officers to resign from the military and soldiers to request discharges, thus leading to no more military.
Foolproof plan
JCS and CJCS should serve at convenience of the Elected President. Anything else would be a farce, imo.
The president should act on courses of action laid out by the JCS. Operational and strategic military planning should be left to those who are capable of doing so. The military in turn is the tip of the spear, and will carry out decisions once they are final.
THINK OF THE TREES!
This whole "checks and balances" thing will work perfectly when one person finally rules over 2 branches/groups...
"JCS and CJCS should serve at convenience of the Elected President. Anything else would be a farce, imo."
-Loftedraptor
Seriously. Everyone answers to someone. This is the only way. Checks and balances.
For god's sake, a "check" some would suggest leaves the nation defenseless (military resign if bad JCS), what, are we moron's?
I totally agree. I wouldn't say that the CJCS should be elected like politicians are, but perhaps Congress should have to confirm their appointment.
This is a constitutional crisis that could easily be solved. The military should stay close to home and vote the CJCS into office as President, and the eUS should be organized as a fascist state. That's how the game is built and thats how it will work the best. My 2c. 😉
I'm going to echo the Ligtreb for President statements. That is so win losing would cease to exist.
> sydiot - "This is a constitutional crisis that could easily be solved. The military should stay close to home and vote the CJCS into office as President, and the eUS should be organized as a fascist state. That's how the game is built and thats how it will work the best. My 2c. 😉"
Who leaked this?
Kyle321n, Inorite?
JCS can remove the CJCS. And that is much easier than an impeachment. The JCS is comprised of some of the most active and knowledgeable players in this game. You don't get there without knowing a lot and showing tremendous leadership skills. A "bad JCS" is almost impossible to imagine. On the other hand, citizens certainly elect bad leaders 🙂.
The President has access to the buttons needed to wage war, peace and foreign policy. But the president does not have authority to tell military personnel where to fight. He is simply not in that chain of command.
Hey ligtreb, I appreciate the thoughtful article. A few things...
JCS can remove the CJCS, just like they appoint him or her. To be concerned about "a bad JCS" is the same concern as having a "bad Congress". It could happen. Both cases are hypothetical.
But consider this. What does it take to be a Congressman? Not much. You get a major party who wants to win seats and they'll put iffy candidates up and vote-move to elect that person. It's happened a lot and will continue to happen.
What does it take to be JCS? Many many hours of hard work rising through the military, leading platoons, leading battalions, watching budgets, checking troop performance, staying up late over and over for server-reset battles, interviewing officer candidates, hiring and firing leaders, doing background checks, working with foreign militaries, war-planning over and over again week after week, giving up a sizable portion of your RL to spend hours every day working JCS duties. The list goes on.
No one does that without a serious love and dedication for the eUS. I am speaking for myself here, of course, but I'm sure it is true for every JCS. Although it is hypothetically possible, the risk of a "bad JCS" is microscopic compared to the risk of a "bad President" or a "bad Congress".
Rod Damon: "One slight flaw, there is a method for removing a bad CJCS."
ligtreb: "I thought of that. What if it's a bad JCS?"
Now I'm sad. If you thought of that, then you knowingly lied in your article. C'mon, man, you're better than that.
Candor: "For god's sake, a "check" some would suggest leaves the nation defenseless (military resign if bad JCS), what, are we moron's?"
I am an officer in the USA military and if JCS was continually hurting the USA, I would resign in a heartbeat. As would every other platoon leader, and many of our platoon members.
ok, Zheng he -- delete one word from my article. Take out the word "Chairman". Article stands.
@Quanah Parker
Thanks for your thoughts, I always respect them.
Bad doesn't have to mean incompetent. What if the JCS was pursing a wrong or unpopular foreign policy?
The likelihood of a bad JCS is not as high as the likelihood of a bad Congress. JCS is filled with people who are committed to their respective branches more than any other person in the game. The congress is filled with those committed to many different things. It could be: parties, medals, power, people, or any other number of things. I would trust the JCS much more than any elected Congress. Many Congress members are not even active in policy and diplomatic affairs.
@Dutch Marley -- where did I say I trusted Congress over the JCS?
"In the first scenario, the President could be impeached by Congress"
You are trusting the Congress to do something here. And I would not trust that at all.
Great article, voted.
@Dutch Marley <3's Ajay/Pizza the Hut
@Quanah Parker
Your whole point echos that the military is entitled to their independence of the rest of the country. You do not recognize that you have achain of command which is more than likely to squash dissent and more than likely to restrict those capable of independent thought.
@Zheng He, calling thr director of the CBO and one of the most respected players and most trusted players in the country a liar is ridiculous. Ligtreb put forth an effort to present an objective point of view. You military guys simply do not want any accountability because that would undermine your sense of being on a high horse.
Popularity doesn't make something right or wrong, like Ajay was the 'popular' vote for congress in a fortress state, I hope to hell it isn't considered a right decision just because it was popular. Sometimes it takes courage to choose the unpopular, but right path.
As for the wrong path, it's hard to say what is wrong. Some people think leaving EDEN was wrong, some people think fighting for non-EDEN allies is wrong. If the decision is completely against the country's safety, then people will no longer have faith or wish to be in the military. They'll join the various militias we have or choose to go overseas to fight with our allies there.
No, Michael Porter, my point is that the military is packed full of quietly-serving dedicated people who spend hours every day for the defense and advancement of the eUSA. The military has the war-planners who have many months of experience with eRepublik military strategy. Our hours and hours of sacrifice speak to our dedication.
You don't hear from military people in politics much, because generally we don't care for it and we get told to 'hush up' more often than not when we do speak up. But when politics comes crashing through your door in the form of a kid having a tantrum, someone needs to speak up.
"As for the wrong path, it's hard to say what is wrong. Some people think leaving EDEN was wrong, some people think fighting for non-EDEN allies is wrong. If the decision is completely against the country's safety, then people will no longer have faith or wish to be in the military. They'll join the various militias we have or choose to go overseas to fight with our allies there. " That is muddy logic and why the military does not determine foreign policy. CJCS has an advisory role and not the decision making capacity to determine non-specific and abstract issues.
@Quanah Parker,
No one doubts you guys are the experts on military planning. The contentious issue was over where we should place damage. The debate was over aiding the Spanish or defending in Asia. NXNW choose to ditate policy to HR. HR as Commander in Chief made a subjective detemrination based on objective information that his Spanish allies/EDEN needed to be defended more. NXNW threatened his willingness continue in his job if HR did not concede the decision making capacity to NXNW. IF the Commander in Chief did not have authority in the issue NXNW would never have needed to tender his resignation. Handing in his resignation is a concession that CiC has decision making oversight on policy decisions such as where we should defend with more priority.