Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
While you're correct that the US Armed Forces are directly involved in making political policy (domestically and internationally), I think the question ought to be "should they be doing that?" Many would say that's an immaterial question, they are.

However, I ask why they seem to want to continue to make policy in a realm that is not and should not be theirs. I don't like the answer I keep coming back to...
The military commanders with whom I have had contact (up through division) never seemed like they wanted to make policy, foreign or domestic. I cannot not speak to commanders at corps and above (far above my paygrade). Not sure which answer you come back to Ken, but the answer I keep coming up with is: because nobody else will.

Wilf is correct
Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
OK, but Armed force serves policy. The Army has to provide what the Policy maker requires - NOT provide what would work if the policy was easier to fulfil by military means. Armies are contractors, not clients.
though our contract is fairly open-ended. The issue comes back to "what do the policy makers require?"