Could A Sitting President Take An Active Role in Military Operations

[Dayton3]

The natural answer would be NO! The Secret Service would never allow it. But wouldn't a president be at least as safe (o. r safer) if surrounded by several thousand loyal soldiers than he would be surrounded by a few hundred Secret Service members?

I ask this because I was writing a story where the president sends a military force (including the 4th Armored Calvary Regiment, a specialized unit specifically designed by the president) overseas to fight and he chooses to go with it. Note the president in this story has never been a soldier himself so with the 4th ACR he is restricted to a "support role" like driving a truck, delivering ammunition and supplies. That sort of thing

 

[rampart]

The natural answer would be NO! The Secret Service would never allow it. But wouldn't a president be at least as safe (o. r safer) if surrounded by several thousand loyal soldiers than he would be surrounded by a few hundred Secret Service members?

I ask this because I was writing a story where the president sends a military force (including the 4th Armored Calvary Regiment, a specialized unit specifically designed by the president) overseas to fight and he chooses to go with it. Note the president in this story has never been a soldier himself so with the 4th ACR he is restricted to a "support role" like driving a truck, delivering ammunition and supplies. That sort of thingp

president washington led the militia against the whiskey rebellion, but no president since ike would be least bit use on a battlefield.

 

[1srelluc]

Presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Madison came under enemy fire but neither personally lead troops into battle as a sitting US POTUS.

 

[gipper]

The natural answer would be NO! The Secret Service would never allow it. But wouldn't a president be at least as safe (o. r safer) if surrounded by several thousand loyal soldiers than he would be surrounded by a few hundred Secret Service members?

I ask this because I was writing a story where the president sends a military force (including the 4th Armored Calvary Regiment, a specialized unit specifically designed by the president) overseas to fight and he chooses to go with it. Note the president in this story has never been a soldier himself so with the 4th ACR he is restricted to a "support role" like driving a truck, delivering ammunition and supplies. That sort of thing

It’s way past time to close the Pentagon (turn it into affordable housing units), bring all troops home, and fire the Joint Chiefs. Yes?

Welfare for the Rich​

By Daniel McAdams
The Ron Paul Institute
February 15, 2024
donate
FacebookTwitter


Why does the US military budget keep skyrocketing? The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2024 passed in December came in at a whopping $841.1 billion, and that’s just part of the total amount that will be spent on military-related issues this year. Just this weekend, for example, the Senate cleared the way for a nearly $100 billion in additional spending to boost the military capabilities of Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan!
What do we get for all that spending? A military that can do whatever it takes to defend the United States? A military whose mere formidable existence acts as a deterrent to any would-be invaders of our geographically unique country surrounded by a massive moat? We shouldn’t be naive!
What we do get for the overall well-over-a-trillion in yearly military spending is…a hollowed-out military that doesn’t even have enough ammunition to defend the United States!
We get a military that is so unattractive to young people that they have had to make radical reforms in desperate attempt to recover from the recruiting death-spiral – including, in the US Navy at least, abandoning the requirement to have any educational credential at all, including a high school diploma or GED. Prospective US Navy personnel need only score 50 or above out of 99 on the notoriously rudimentary ASVAB test (that means with a score of 50% – which in the real world is a failing grade – you’re in!).
But surely for all those billions we are getting weapons that are absolutely crushing it on the battlefield? Not exactly. As we have seen for two years on the Ukraine battlefield of the US proxy war against Russia, each new “wonder weapon” sent by the Pentagon – starting with Javelins and continuing through HIMARS, Bradley fighting vehicles, M1A1 Abrams tanks, and even the new Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (which are so new the Pentagon itself doesn’t yet have them in its arsenal) – is quickly defeated by Russian counter-measures.
Even the rabidly pro-war and anti-Russia Washington Post – the Pravda of our regime – is admitting that Ukraine is headed for defeat. The Pentagon – and NATO – has sent all they had into Ukraine to fight Russia and still it is losing.

 

[Dayton3]

It’s way past time to close the Pentagon (turn it into affordable housing units), bring all troops home, and fire the Joint Chiefs. Yes?

Welfare for the Rich​

By Daniel McAdams
The Ron Paul Institute
February 15, 2024
donate
FacebookTwitter


Why does the US military budget keep skyrocketing? The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2024 passed in December came in at a whopping $841.1 billion, and that’s just part of the total amount that will be spent on military-related issues this year. Just this weekend, for example, the Senate cleared the way for a nearly $100 billion in additional spending to boost the military capabilities of Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan!
What do we get for all that spending? A military that can do whatever it takes to defend the United States? A military whose mere formidable existence acts as a deterrent to any would-be invaders of our geographically unique country surrounded by a massive moat? We shouldn’t be naive!
What we do get for the overall well-over-a-trillion in yearly military spending is…a hollowed-out military that doesn’t even have enough ammunition to defend the United States!
We get a military that is so unattractive to young people that they have had to make radical reforms in desperate attempt to recover from the recruiting death-spiral – including, in the US Navy at least, abandoning the requirement to have any educational credential at all, including a high school diploma or GED. Prospective US Navy personnel need only score 50 or above out of 99 on the notoriously rudimentary ASVAB test (that means with a score of 50% – which in the real world is a failing grade – you’re in!).
But surely for all those billions we are getting weapons that are absolutely crushing it on the battlefield? Not exactly. As we have seen for two years on the Ukraine battlefield of the US proxy war against Russia, each new “wonder weapon” sent by the Pentagon – starting with Javelins and continuing through HIMARS, Bradley fighting vehicles, M1A1 Abrams tanks, and even the new Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (which are so new the Pentagon itself doesn’t yet have them in its arsenal) – is quickly defeated by Russian counter-measures.
Even the rabidly pro-war and anti-Russia Washington Post – the Pravda of our regime – is admitting that Ukraine is headed for defeat. The Pentagon – and NATO – has sent all they had into Ukraine to fight Russia and still it is losing.

Of course Ukraine is losing. They are surrounded by a nation (Russia) that vastly outnumbers them. What do you expect? You think some shipments of weapons to the Ukrainians can easily overcome that? Losing or not the Ukrainians have had some spectacular successes in this war.

 

[gipper]

Of course Ukraine is losing. They are surrounded by a nation (Russia) that vastly outnumbers them. What do you expect? You think some shipments of weapons to the Ukrainians can easily overcome that? Losing or not the Ukrainians have had some spectacular successes in this war.

Yet you thought billions of dollars of US war material would result in their winning. Now you change your tune, but only after hundreds of thousands are dead and maimed, and half the nation destroyed...and billions given to the war contractors with nice kickbacks to the two crime families.

Good job establishment toady.

 

[whitehall]

Generals do not act independently. The US military works for the civilian government. The president might not order troops but he sets the agenda.

 

[Couchpotato]

The natural answer would be NO! The Secret Service would never allow it. But wouldn't a president be at least as safe (o. r safer) if surrounded by several thousand loyal soldiers than he would be surrounded by a few hundred Secret Service members?

I ask this because I was writing a story where the president sends a military force (including the 4th Armored Calvary Regiment, a specialized unit specifically designed by the president) overseas to fight and he chooses to go with it. Note the president in this story has never been a soldier himself so with the 4th ACR he is restricted to a "support role" like driving a truck, delivering ammunition and supplies. That sort of thing

Safer in a war zone?

 

[gipper]

Safer in a war zone?

He thinks war is fun.

 

[whitehall]

Generals do not act independently and neither do presidents. The US military takes an oath to support and defend the civilian government and the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution governs the conduct of the president.

 

[Dadoalex]

The natural answer would be NO! The Secret Service would never allow it. But wouldn't a president be at least as safe (o. r safer) if surrounded by several thousand loyal soldiers than he would be surrounded by a few hundred Secret Service members?

I ask this because I was writing a story where the president sends a military force (including the 4th Armored Calvary Regiment, a specialized unit specifically designed by the president) overseas to fight and he chooses to go with it. Note the president in this story has never been a soldier himself so with the 4th ACR he is restricted to a "support role" like driving a truck, delivering ammunition and supplies. That sort of thing

The president actively involved in combat operations?

The last actual military guy in the role was GHW Bush, an air force type.
Before that, Carter, a submariner.
the last guy to do actual ground battle was IKE.
The last sailor to do battle was Kennedy.

Even then, IKE was 62 years old when taking office.

TBH the last guy who, at his age during his presidency, I would consider following into a ground battle was T. Roosevelt.

As a story you might consider something like Escape From NY where the president is caught behind enemy lines with a contingent of 20-30 soldiers.

 

[Couchpotato]

He thinks war is fun.

A good sign he's never been.

 

[gipper]

A good sign he's never been.

Only an ignorant person would consider war fun. One doesn’t have to experience it first hand to know.

 

[whitehall]

The only glitch in the system is the media. It seems that media support for any crazy act by mostly democrat presidents tends to justify it. Case in point Bill Clinton's bombing of defenseless Yugoslavia while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in Florida.

 

[Couchpotato]

Only an ignorant person would consider war fun. One doesn’t have to experience it first hand to know.

Plenty of people romanticize war

 

[gipper]

Plenty of people romanticize war

Yes they do. Sadly so.

Many Americans now think war is just a natural thing, that we must support over and over again. The MIC has won.

 

[Dayton3]

@gippers claim that I think "war is fun" is a gross falsehood

 

[Dayton3]

The president actively involved in combat operations?

The last actual military guy in the role was GHW Bush, an air force type.
Before that, Carter, a submariner.
the last guy to do actual ground battle was IKE.
The last sailor to do battle was Kennedy.

Even then, IKE was 62 years old when taking office.

TBH the last guy who, at his age during his presidency, I would consider following into a ground battle was T. Roosevelt.

As a story you might consider something like Escape From NY where the president is caught behind enemy lines with a contingent of 20-30 soldiers.

Bush was a navy pilot. Not Air Force.

Carter nevre actually served on a submarine

 

[Dadoalex]

Bush was a navy pilot. Not Air Force.

Carter nevre actually served on a submarine

I stand corrected.

But

After completing two years of surface ship duty, Carter applied for submarine duty. He served as executive officer, engineering officer, and electronics repair officer on the submarine SSK-1.
Can't say that Carter was ever underway in a sub but he was qualified and served as XO on one.

 

[gipper]

@gippers claim that I think "war is fun" is a gross falsehood

You should about the fact that all war is a racket. I believe there is a good book on the subject that will enlighten you.