This is in line with my thinking. A militaristic view of a situation may be different from the political consequence.
And, I don't know what the answer is. Seems like a pretty subjective line on what type of conflict should involve approval instead of direct action.
@The Human Q-Tip - you seem to think this is no big deal. Where do you draw the line on what should involve CiC approval?
I thought I already stated that, but fine. It has to be a
bright line, .
So the first line -- which is already a standing order -- is no attacks across borders without Presidential authorization. Washington also gets to decide, at least on the macro level, who our allies are, and if/whether any particular factions on the other side are off limits. Washington decides whether or not our troops in Syria can engage Russian or Syrian units. And it obviously should be consulted regarding overall force levels deployed in a particular theater.
Washington may also set the ROE, though that should be done with a mindset towards leaving as much discretion as possible with the military in-theater. Or perhaps it is better to say that the military command should set the ROE, with Washington only stepping in if it is apparent problems with the ROE are rising to a level of real significance.
Washington also should be consulted before any
major military operations in which significant American or civilian casualties are reasonably possible, or when political coordination with the foreign government is required. In other words, if we're planning on participating actively in the liberation of Mosul, there should be civilian consultation.
In terms of permissible weapons, the standard prohibitions against chems/bios applies ( we don't use them, period) and nukes are under the control of the President. And whatever is otherwise contained in the law of war. Other than that, no restrictions.
That's off the top of my head. Probably could think of some more stuff, or refine the verbiage a bit, but that's the basic idea. In general, the rule is that the President decides what the military should do, and the military should decide how to do it.
I was in artillery, and did a lot of fire support coordination with air assets. Target don't just
sit there, and there are a ton of factors that affect the most advantageous timing of a particular strike. If you deprive our military of the ability to respond quickly to a changing battlefield, you are eliminating one of the biggest advantages we have. It is our superior battlefield intelligence/observation, and ability to multiply combat power quickly through the use of supporting arms and airlift capability, that really sets us apart from our enemies in a tactical sense.
FDR didn't micromanage the war effort in WW2. And to the extent Churchill did it, the result often was not good.
