why is it that militaries have a commandant?
145989
In the past, The Marine Corps Commadant would retire from the military, following his stint as Commadant. This hasn't been the case lately.  The last Commadant, General James Jones was offered the job as Supreme Commander of NATO forces, which is a position he still holds.For the first time in US history a Marine Corps General has been assigned the position of Chairman of the joints chief of staff.  His name is General Peter Pace.  The Corps is finally getting the recognition it has earned and truly deserves. The Marine Corps is the only branch of service that has a Commadant, because it is part of the Navy but,the buck stops with the Commadant on matters pertaining to Marines!   Semper Fidelis!
357347
If you are talking about a captured or hors de combat enemy - the answer is that this would be an illegal order and it is every soldiers duty not only to disobey it - but to report that person for even giving that order.\n\nIf the enemy has not surrendered or is not hors de combat - he had better make some obvious indication of surrender before I get a good sight picture.
1178176
marines because they have there act together unlike the army
858102
Military ranking is the basis for many facets of society.  Police departments, in many cases, follow the concept to the point of using names and ranks for individuals as they climb the department ranks.  Protocol in the corporate structure is fashioned after military structure.  Many in the corporate structure today, would not realize this because they have never served in a military environment.\n The Pentagon, or for that matter any military complex in the whole world where civilians and military personnel work together, have melded there ranking so that seniority and rank prevail over those of lesser rank or seniority.  So much so, that a civilian  with a higher G-rating than an officer with a lower O-ranking is in command of a project they work on, jointly, unless the civilian is assigned only in a consulting capacity.
134278
A man in a uniform is "certified" to be as good as the uniform.  That is, a person who has been selected to wear the uniform by the authority involved.  A Marine, for example, has been chosen for being strong and brave and healthy, and except perhaps at the lowest ranks, reasonably intelligent.  There's an air of nobility, too: he's putting his life on the line for you!\n\nThen, too, there is a superior officer somewhere to complain to if he misbehaves!\n\nI doubt that women think it out like this when they respond to a uniform.  They just say "masculinity," and that's good enough.  But of course, a business suit can also say "masculinity," if they think about it.
475198
from , http://ask.yahoo.com/20020308.html\n\nThe five star general rank was created in the midst of World War II to address the fact that several American commanders found themselves in the delicate position of supervising Allied officers of higher rank. Initially, the new rank was to be called Field Marshal, after the British military, but this was nixed due to stern (and quite understandable) objections from General George C. Marshall. \nWhen General of the Army Omar N. Bradley died in April of 1981, the five star ranking was consigned to history. In all, four Army generals, four Navy admirals, and one Air Force general have held this rank. The Army's five star generals were General George C. Marshall, General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Omar N. Bradley. The Navy's five-star fleet admirals were Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. And General Henry Arnold was the Air Force's five star general. \n\nWho beats a five star general? A General of the Armies of the United States -- the highest military rank of all time, hands down. To date, only George Washington and John J. Pershing have held this position
606609
god please if you are in the army and are an enlisted not an officer which its very obvious you are not then you are very aware that according to the UCMJ it is illigal for an enlisted person whether its male or female to have a freindship relationship with an officer whether they are male or female. \narticle 134-23 of the UCMJ states\nThat the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer; \n\n(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner; \n\n(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s); \n\n(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and \n\n(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. \n\nExplanation. \n\nThe gist of this offense is a violation of the custom of the armed forces against fraternization. Not all contact or association between officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether the contact or association in question is an offense depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors to be considered include whether the conduct has compromised the chain of command, resulted in the appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The acts and circumstances must be such as to lead a reason-able person experienced in the problems of military leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline of the armed forces has been prejudiced by their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations of an officer. \n(2) Regulations. Regulations, directives, and orders may also govern conduct between officer and enlisted personnel on both a service-wide and a local basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different ranks, or between officers of different ranks may be similarly covered. Violations of such regulations directives, or orders may be punishable under Article 92
850522
The ROYAL Marines (marines are some fake US outfit..) Are principally based near Britain's major Naval ports I expect because of the history. They were effectively the on board police force for the Royal Navy many moons ago. I am not sure if still the case, but on board ship they always had their quarters close to the Officers. It would be natural therefore to have them based  near Navy bases. The concentration down South could be because our major sea ports for the Royal Navy were Plymouth and Portsmouth.
110763
III Corps army units, most notably the 4th ID and 1st Air Cav divisions, it seems hardly possible that a Marine outfit would be sent there, either for training or stationing? Of course, there's always the outside chance of inter-service coordination.  We now have the first Marine General (Lt. Gen James Cartwright) in charge of the Strategic Command, before it was either an Airforce or Navy Admiral, so i guess the times they are a changin.
392999
That position is simply a sop to the non military, they are their own judges and executioners, without reference to anyone. Thats why only idiots join armed services
890363
I am gonna enlighten you.\nThe Marines and the Army are not the same outfit.\nThere are also Navy Reserves, Air Force Reserves, and Coast Guard Reserves.
596878
The lead sergeant of a platoon the uses mortars. Sounds simple but it was typically, in the Army, a Sargent First Class (E-7). He was the number 2 in command behind the platoon leader (usually a O2).\n\nMortars come in a variety of sizes, are used for up close attacks i.e. between grenades and artillery range.
40959
it is important for NCOs to set the example for their soldiers, they show that they have respect for their superiors so that their soldiers see that they are not being expected to perform things that their leaders dont have to do....it is also about proffessionalism....that junior NCO shows respect to his superior by standing at parade rest, symbolizing his knowledge that his superior is respected for his knowledge and experiance as well as rank.\n\nSaluting is a very old custom.....there are many theories as to where it originated, one of the most widely accepted theories is that it derived from an action taken by friendly kngihts to other freindly knights as a show of non violence and respect.  Many knights would raise the visor on their helmet when riding by to show their face and thus respect to the person they were passing, this action was generally performed with the right hand to show that the person did not intend to use their weapon.
760360
Simple, the Generals desire is to be victorious as quickly as possible and get out.  Rumsfeld's job is to keep us there as long as possible, to sustain the largest sink-hole of money ever created.  They have different goals - one noble and one criminal.
738799
Commissioned officers assume the duty of command starting with four star generals who assume duty for the entire command, such as the war in Iraq.  Actually, I believe that general is a lieutenant general.  All the way down to platoon or unit command which is usually held by a first or second lieutenant.\nNCO's are usually entrusted with the responsibility of commanding the enlisted ranks, some of which are operations, and some of which are administrative.  A 1st sergeant as an example, may command the entire company as senior enlisted NCO, however he will report to the commanding officer who will be a commissioned officer, probably a captain.  A Sgt/mjr may command at a higher level, but again the enlisted ranks of a larger unit, such as a battalion.  Again, the Sgt/mjr. will report to the commanding officer of the battalion, probably a major or Lieutenant Colonel.\n\nThe chain of command sometimes gets a little fuzzy when dealing with a battalion level Sgt/Mjr, as it pertains to officers within the battalion.  Obviously, the Sgt/mjr has a lot of sway at that level, after all, he answers only to the boss, so he's treated with respect even by the junior officers.  To say, these junior officers take orders from the Sgt/mjr would not be accurate, however, if the Sgt/mjr is passing on verbal orders from the CO, they had better be listening to the Sgt/mjr.
279709
Enlisted men and women are trained to work, officers are trained to lead. That way everyone can perfom their task more efficiently. We need leaders, espcecially in times of life and death. The most effective militaries have had great leaders, both good and evil. The reason they are paid more, is that they have incredible amounts of responsibility. Imagine being in charge of a group of people who are performing a mission that affects the entire country. That deserves compensation and recognition.
633257
There is a large body of international law and customary practices that govern armed conflict between nations.\n\nUnder these laws, soldiers usually meet the legal requirements to be considered as 'combatants' and as such their actions and their actions are considered to be legal under international law.\n\nThe is where the controversy over the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay weakens the protections of civilians from the effects of combat.  By ignoring the rules of international law and granting them 'combatant' status (a prerequisite for becoming a POW) the people opposing the US are creating an international precedent that you do not have to obey the laws and customs of war (a requirement to be a combatant) or to take measures that make it easier for soldiers to tell the difference between combatants and civilians on the battlefield.