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.
Do I think the US was democratic during WWII? How does the US doing something make it in any way right, legitimate, or acceptable? The fact that others did the same, such as Canada, changes nothing to this.
A quick, decisive victory, with a minimal amount of civillian collateral damage is FAR less damaging than a prolonged war where the military who sees the REALITY on the ground as opposed to some spoiled college brat who has never set foot on foreign soil watching on CNN from thousands of miles away. When you start to question the men on the ground, people die. I've seen it time and time again. 1993, Somalia. Rather than give the troops on the ground armor and proper air support, the Ranger/Delta detachment didn't even get doors on their HUMVEEs until the day of the Battle of the Black Sea (more commonly known as Black Hawk Down). That was because the one person who could have approved it didn't think it was best that the most elite special operations forces in the world being sent into the middle of hostile territory to hunt down a wanted war criminal guilty of genocide and starving his own people to portray a military presence. Agent Orange is a form of chemical warfare, and only the Commander in Chief can approve such a thing. Guess who approved it? Yep, that civilian who put us in Vietnam in the first place (not the military). The military doesn't start wars, we just bleed for the idiots who get put into power who start them. If a military man was in control, you'd see fewer wars.
Also, DON'T EVER presume that we are paid to follow orders like mindless robots and not think. If it weren't for the thinking soldier on the battlefield, we could all be goose stepping right now. Don't ever, ever presume !@#$ like that. You haven't been there, and those are fighting words.
Those who have been to war are the least eager to return. If you look at modern history and the wars started, its because some pinhead civilian thought it would be a good idea, the majority of the time. The military doesn't pick our fights, we just bleed for those who did.
I never said in any way that I approve of a government, elected or not, being able to unilaterally engage the entire country in war.
As for military men being in control, that's a funny thing you say there. Because from where I stand, a ton of violent dictatorships are precisely that: military putsches where the generals in charge repress their own citizen to maintain control. Or are you going to tell me that Pinochet and Péron, just to name two, were swell lads that'd you love to have tea with? Heck, even in the example that you gave: Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a Somalian general.
