Would you say that the military is being overseen by civilian leaders is the most appropriate way to run the country?
It seems to be effectiveWell, our country has been around for a while, and since its inception, we've had civilians in charge of the militaryIs it the most appropriate way? I don't know about that, but it's definitely been working for us so farSo I'm going to say yes- very well.
It's not my area of expertise, but I'd say it's somewhat workingAs someone who isn't particularly well-versed in the nuances of military and its logistics, I'm not sure if civilians are the best people to be in chargeBut there are probably checks and balances in place to ensure that the military doesn't go too crazySo somewhat well, I suppose.
It seems to be effectiveWell, our country has been around for a while, and since its inception, we've had civilians in charge of the militaryIs it the most appropriate way? I don't know about that, but it's definitely been working for us so farSo I'm going to say yes- very well. It's not my area of expertise, but I'd say it's somewhat workingAs someone who isn't particularly well-versed in the nuances of military and its logistics, I'm not sure if civilians are the best people to be in chargeBut there are probably checks and balances in place to ensure that the military doesn't go too crazySo somewhat well, I suppose. I don't have an informed opinion, but it doesn't seem to be working that well to meI don't have any expertise in this area, but when I see headlines about military mishaps and cover-ups, I can't help but wonder if civilian oversight isn't working all that great. There's no simple answer, but my guess is that it's not working that wellThe fact that military budgets are debated and approved by Congress makes me believe that civilian oversight is a good thingBut there are probably instances where the military would benefit from more autonomyIn other words, I'm going to say not well at all.