Explaining the bill
ligtreb
I've seen a lot of misconceptions in our media and forums about the recent bill Congress passed regarding the military.
Because of my long tenure in Congress (16 terms) and being a military member for even longer than I've been in Congress, I felt like it was my duty to explain this bill to people and reassure everyone. I would never agree with any bill that "destroys the military" as others have claimed this does.
This bill will not affect anyone in the military outside of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is not a political take over of the military, or Congress forcing itself on the military as I've seen mentioned elsewhere. The day-to-day activities of the military will be the same. They still get to name their own leaders and run themselves as they see fit.
Neither the Executive or Congress is able to choose their own CJCS or JCS member.
I've seen some worried that the JCS will now be political appointments. The JCS still picks their own Chairman and JCS members. The only differences now are that the President can remove a CJCS and that with a 2/3 vote, Congress can remove a JCS member.
I know the Congress part scares a lot of you, but let me say this: I'd be extremely surprised if this ever happened. We also have the power the remove a President with a 2/3 vote, and we haven't impeached a President in almost two years.
Term limits
The only term-limit established in this bill is for the Chairman, and he/she can't serve more than two-consecutive three-month terms. The JCS and JCS advisors are not term-limited and can serve forever.
While I didn't agree with this, I see the logic behind it and it was not a big enough reason to vote "No" on this bill. It's good to get new people at the head of every office sometimes.
I've seen the argument of "Congress doesn't have term-limits, why should the CJCS?" This is apples and oranges. The CJCS is the head of his branch, congressmen are not unless they are the Speaker, and no Speaker during my time here has served more than two months consecutively.
Checks and balances
The main reason this bill passed is to create a system of accountability. Congress gives most of its budget to the military (and most of the remainder goes to MPPs or reserves that help the military). Prior to this bill, the military did not have to tell us how the money was being spent or answer any of our questions, so getting information from the JCS was often like pulling teeth. Obviously, there are often national security concerns, but even when I or others asked questions that had nothing to do with national security, we couldn't get any information. Basically, we were just handing them over money with no accountability.
I trust that our military leaders always work for our benefit, but I wasn't comfortable with an arrangement that wouldn't let us be sure. Trust, but verify. The JCS has always been welcome in Congressional forums and IRC.
Under this bill, the military does not have to tell all of Congress everything. But one Congressman (the Speaker) will have access. The Speaker is almost always a highly-trusted member of Congress, and if they're not, the JCS has every right to tell us they don't trust him and help us elect a new Speaker.
Commander-in-Chief
The part of this bill that was most overdue is that the President gets the final decision on orders. I wrote about this almost a year ago and still hold most of the same viewpoints today, so I won't go into too much detail here.
Basically, we elect the President to be in charge of Foreign Policy and War. The President is the one with access to all the buttons to do those things. There have been times over the past year where the JCS has wanted to pursue a different foreign policy than our President, and that has hurt our foreign policy overall. The JCS should definitely advise the President on what he should do, and ideally, the CJCS and President would always agree. But when they don't, the guy we elect and can impeach should have the final call.
Thank you for reading
I'm proud of my long-time military service, especially when I was an officer for the National Guard and Marines in my past. I would never do anything to hurt the military and hope I made it clear here why this bill does not harm the military.
Comments
Thank god, hats off to you sir.
😮 I even read and still got first.
Ligtreb is right.
Nice article to read.
Good read, Paladin's avatar is so cool!
http://www.erepublik.com/en/USA/law/4199
@Cavalcanti: No
There was an attempt, but it failed. Your link is for Uncle Sam. That was almost two years ago.
There. It was Uncle Sam. >_> Yet he was a complete idiot to deserve that. Not that anyone in the JCS would be like him.
Finally.... A Congressman finally decided to clear this up. THANK YOU!
Cool, we need to continue to discuss this to allay any unreasonable fears. Thx for writing.
Leave it up to Ligtreb.
I love this bill. And ligtreb. Don't ask me to choose between the two.
Good read.
Good article. As always.
Why have congress able to fire JCS? Why not put it under the executive branch? The fact that it is not likely to occur is not a reason to grant this power. Most of congress is uninformed on who is doing a good job as JCS, how can they make an informed decision removal of a JCS?
Silly ligtreb, being all sensible and not sensationalist...
I think with politics being introduced into the military chain of command, the only recourse is for the military to become involved in politics. Be careful what you wish for.
COOL, Krixuz Met Ligtreb
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7903/krixuz.jpg
Thank you for doing this, I try to reckon it like this. Before the only recourse Congress had if they disagreed with the Military was to cut off funding. This is obviously a terrible course of action and basically a non starter. While its very unlikely that Congress would ever have need to remove a JCS member, its a lot better check then cutting off funding to the whole military.
Ligtreb is right
Thank you ligtreb, this article was badly needed.
This is awesome.
Voted. Very informative.
I know now that in any overblown eMerican political situation, ligtreb is the one to go to.
Nice article I must say. However, I must disagree on one point and I think that jhon largo has it right on the spot. How can congressman make an informed decision on a JCS member? Since they aren't living in an open house, it would be hard for them to clearly see their competence. For the CJCS, it's a totally different matter, and yes, I agree that an option to remove him is not that much of a big deal. It's his job to keep his house clean, so he should be the one to have to keep his JCS staff under check, if not, then you can take it up with him and congress.
Nonetheless, a very good article to see right throught everything.
Thanks, this was helpfull : )
Ligtreb is right.
Voted so hard.
Are you by chance a reincarnation of Buddha. You seem to always think things out and present them in a way that is completely and utterly logical.
Voted.
biglog168, liggy is about as close to pure Zen as you can get. Believe me, I should know. 😉
@John Largo/Chucky
JCS have full access to the private sections of congress where such a vote would take place. Members of the JCS could communicate/advise congress on the merits of any allegations against a JCS member.
This process can not been done out of the sight of senior military. There is multiple JCS members in congress already. The difficulty of achieving an impeachment of a JCS member would not only be difficult it would would have ramifications if done unjustly.
Why in the hell am I not friends with you yet?
Voted
Ligtreb is right x9001
A great paper I can always read to bring me back to my American roots ^______^
Great article as always!
As long as its a 2/3 vote of Congress and not the 2/3 vote of a quorum then its all good.
Voted, great article, thanks for the clarification!
Thanks ligtreb
I don't know what we would do without ligtreb to come and save the day once again.
good article. :}
I agree with this article and the bill for the most part. The only part that I do have some reservations about is the term limit on the Chairman. I think that is highly unnecessary, but in general this bill does more good than harm. I'm all for accountability and the check & balance this brings.
Voted 🙂