Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.
Military victory is not primordial.
I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.
Did you not read what I said about letting the civilian government decide when to go to war? You're so worked up by me talking about military having control of strategies and objectives that you believe I'm saying they should decide when to go to war or when to end a war. I never said that. And democracy does have to take a back seat sometimes, if the situation warrants it. Do you really think the US was democratic at all during WWII? !@#$ no. Anyone who spoke out against the war was probably jailed.
As for civilian heads of government controlling the military, we only have to look at the African campaign of WWII to see what happens as a result. The British army denuded of troops when they were about to push the Axis altogether following Operation Compass. Multiple changes in leadership that possibly lengthened the time the campaign in Africa took. Yes they eventually got Montgomery in, but one could say that he was fighting Rommel when his Africa Korps. was at its weakest. Personally, I think Ancient Rome (the republic, not the eventual empire) had the best system for wartime. Someone who was selected to fight the war for its duration. Yes, the position was called dictator, but it is not the same as the modern use of the word.
