Leading from the front

[Stravo]

Should a Commander in Chief be forced Consitutionally to accompany troops he sends into battle? Not something ridiculous like the POTUS sitting in a trench or carrying an M-16 but should he be forced to be in theater during comabt operations?

For example, GWB would have been required to accompany the troops into his Afghanistan campaign, during the initial faces of combat he would be based out of the aircraft carrier closest to Afghnaistan until military commanders state that the area is secure for him then he would be forced to transfer to the HQ in Afghanistan itself until either a cease fire or peace is signed. Then he would be allowed to return to Washington DC.

In the Iraqi campaign, same scenario, he would be on an aircraft carrier or the CENTCOM HQ in Bahrain until Iraq was secured then he would have to transfer to Baghdad until a cease fire or peace is signed.

This would encourage the President to be more careful about the wars he chooses to fight and also in some way shows him what his troops are going through being far from home. (I know that he would certainly not suffer any of the hardhsips of the troops in the field but the point is he would not be at home and his returning home would be contingent on his troops' sucess.)

In instances of a two front war, the VP would have to take the president's place in one of the theaters.

This system would also silence some peaceniks who complain about Bush's wars. Bush is there at the front, so he is in theory sharing some of teh risks, defusing the complaints that he sits on his ass while American boys are dying ina foreign land.

Thoughts?

Is this even workable in anyway?

[Bob McDob]

It wouldn't make sense in an absolute case, since in a fight against relatively equal sides, the opposition would almost certainly throw everything it could spare against the C-I-C. It'd probably only work in a cultural, not a political sense.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't see how that would make any sense. Maybe I'm not understanding the idea, but I don't think that putting FDR potentially in harm's way would have either prevented us from entering WWII or been a good policy once we were in the war. Moreover, I don't think it would be enforceable, and the one US president who did go out and join the front lines in combat didn't help things at all.

[Stravo]

MoO, all I'm saying is that the president would have to be in theater. So in the WWII Scneario, FDR could in London and his VP would be in Hawaii.

In Korea, Truman would have been in Tokyo. Its not putting him in harm as a president would be kept far away from the front lines but in theater.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is idiotic. The President is a politician to direct the military for the preservation of the nation's needs in a holistic or general sense, but he is not qualified to command troops in theatre.

The kind of personal command assumed by the the White House in Vietnam under the Johnson Administration is one of the many blunders of that clusterfuck.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Moreover, when was the last time a key general or theatre commander of ours was killed or captured. They're in no danger.

[Stravo]

Moreover, when was the last time a key general or theatre commander of ours was killed or captured. They're in no danger.

That's the point they aren't in any danger, but maybe someone like GWB would have thought twice about invading Iraq if he knew he would be stuck in Iraq for a few months.

[SirNitram]

It'd be nice to make politicians think before they embark on stupid wars, but ultimately I don't think this is very feasible or wise. I daresay there would be some security risk in placing the President in Baghdad for extended periods.

[Rubberanvil]

Moreover, when was the last time a key general or theatre commander of ours was killed or captured. They're in no danger.

That's the point they aren't in any danger, but maybe someone like GWB would have thought twice about invading Iraq if he knew he would be stuck in Iraq for a few months.

Bush Jr already knew the U.S. Military is going to there in Iraq for a long time ala post-war Germany, Japan, South Korea and etc. so your point being? Plus the President duty during war is also to look out for the domestic issues at home and with him and vice president gone for the duration of the war is very bad policy.

lastly with what about Congress as they are needed to approve any war the President may plan?

[jegs2]

Should a Commander in Chief be forced Consitutionally to accompany troops he sends into battle? Not something ridiculous like the POTUS sitting in a trench or carrying an M-16 but should he be forced to be in theater during comabt operations?

I don't think there is any precident for that in US history. Moreover, I'd not like to be the unit the President was co-located with, or it would be just as useful to paint a bull's-eye on my forehead.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Didn't Washington personally command troops during a revolt during his term, or was that after?

[Sea Skimmer]

Is this even workable in anyway?

No its really not, and its fucking stupid anyway. The resources wasted simply in securing him and providing all then needed communications gear would be immense.

[Sea Skimmer]

Didn't Washington personally command troops during a revolt during his term, or was that after?

It was during his term, and he is the only president to have led troops while in office. However that was also at a time when a General could sit a quarter mile behind the well-defined front line and be near immune to enemy fire, and the Whisky rebellion was put down without fighting anyway thanks to Washington's massively overwhelming show of force

[Darth Raptor]

How would you justify hampering his performance elswhere? It's not like his imput is of any strategic or tactical value, he's a politician. He would be better off in Washington, because he has a country to run.

[Master of Ossus]

It strikes me that this would be pretty expensive. Not only would you need to pay for the travel expenses of the President and his entourage, you would also have to foot the bill for establishing a new command center, setting up and maintaining security away from Washington, and all sorts of miscellaneous expenses. Also, I'm not sure that it would help at all, and it would clearly hurt the President's response time when dealing with domestic issues and the Congress, simply because of the potential 10+ hour time differential.