Slippery slope.
Well that is exactly my point. Soldiers should not set policy. They should merely advise as to what is possible using violence or the threat of violence. That's it!General Lemay advocating strongly for the bombing of Cuba during the missile crisis is another real example of the type of advocacy that goes beyond informing or shaping policy. His role as a leader in the profession of arms was not to set policy that is the role of the President. However, I view General Lemay as acting outside the bounds of the profession of arms by attempting to set policy.
Get them to study war and warfare. Their contribution is violence, and the control that brings. Make sure they understand that. You do not shape policy to better use violence. You better shape violence to serve policy.My question is how do we, as a profession of arms, establish clear roles and develop our military leaders to operate within those established boundaries?
Bookmarks