Short answer: the Founders saw civilian control of the military as very important, so they put a democratically elected official (the president of the United States) in charge of the armed forces. Of course, it was expected that the president, if not a general himself (as George Washington was), would regularly seek the advice of professional military advisors. But basically, the President would have the final say over things like troop movements and grand strategy.

Slightly longer answer: plenty of evidence also suggests that the Founders also envisioned a very active role for Congress in war-making, especially declaring war, but subsequent history and practice hasn't exactly borne that out. Not counting the Revolutionary War, Congress has only officially declared war five times in U.S. history (the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII). We've of course fought many, many more wars than that. One could argue that the congressional practice of passing AUMFs (Authorizations for the Use of Military Force) is the modern-day equivalent of declaring war.

Shorter answer: the Constitution is outdated and has many stupid provisions. It works though. I can't complain.

The president's control over the military fits with the general separation of powers. Congress declares war (ha! in theory, anyway), and the president executes the war by directing the military.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper no. 74 basically says the choice is so obvious as to require no explanation:
"THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States.'' The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

If anything, the more important characteristic of the military is that it's under civilian control to begin with, in contrast to many countries where the military is independently governed (which leads to *all sorts* of trouble).

bo, what's stupid about it? Having someone democratically elected in charge of the high level decisions is a pretty great idea.

Having one single person democratically elected by a small portion of the world's population in charge of the entire military force of the strongest military on the planet with the largest nuclear capabilities on the planet is stupid.

How else would you do it?

Anyway, civilian control of the military extends down to the SecDef, SecNav, etc. That got built up more around the War of 1812, as we transitioned to a non-militia military.

Well, it could reduce the number of conflicts contrasted with multiple smaller armed forces... Oh wait, unless you live in Afghanistan.


Or Iraq...


Or Libya...


Or Syria...

Hmm. At least the Ukraine is made safer by allying itself to the US... no? Damn.

Crimea river.

If internationalizing our military and the rest of the world's major militaries isn't an option, I would say exactly how it's been largely done since WWII - pass it off to Congress.

Internationalizing the military is not a valid option at this point in the game and likely won't be for years to come. However, I do agree that Congress should play a greater role in deciding when we get involved militarily. When it comes to battle plans or decisiveness though, one individual is needed, supported by a strong staff of knowledgeable experts. You can't fight a war in a committee.

The reason the military has a chain of command which always traces back to a single point is for operational security. In the event a squad is put under fire from an unknown force they need the ability to react quickly and the squad leader is given that authority. this example is just magnified up the ladder all the way to the president who holds the ability to respond with military force immediately following an attack. Consider for a moment if we allowed congress, who can not even agree on a budget to meet at a moments notice and vote within minutes whether we should use force. I think out current system is pretty good when you consider the draw backs to the alternatives. In our current system: President can deploy forces at will (of course these forces are funded by congressional budgets), then congress has 90 days to authorize the further use of military force, the authorization at that point will have clauses which can even further limit the presidents power including the ability for congress to have to re-authorize the conflict every so many days or months or years. The system is relatively simple and honestly there are far more pressing issues and more fucked up topics in our country to really worry about this sound and well-operating system. (If you argue that the system doesn;t work because we go to war so often and for unpopular reasons, I implore you to look at the real blame: Congress and the american populous who consistently turns out in abysmal numbers to elect the people who decide if we go to war) You dont like war? then vote for someone who also doesn't like war... hell, just vote.

To further my point I ask that we start a game of diplomacy where France (strongest power by a significant consensus) is governed by a group of 11 individuals all of whom have different win conditions:
Chairman- Draw or solo victory
Army Gen- Largest land force at end of game
Navy Gen- Largest Naval force at end of game
Representative Marseilles- Win without italy being eliminated
Representative Paris- Win without ever losing Paris and maintain a constant military presence in Burgundy
Representative Brest- Win without england being eliminated
Diplomat Russia- Win and make russia second largest
Diplomat Turkey- Win and make Turkey second largest
Diplomat Austria- Win and make Austria second Larget
Diplomat Germany- Win and make Germany second largest
Diplomat england- win and make England second largest

and they must vote on every issue and all issues require a simple majority.

meanwhile every other nation has a common sense system in which the military is operated by an individual.

sorry 12. I forgot the Diplomat Italy.

oh and every 4 years we will switch all the players out.

"The system is relatively simple and honestly there are far more pressing issues and more fucked up topics in our country to really worry about this sound and well-operating system."

I think i mostly agree with Bryon there.

The US military machine works, at wars. You could complain about wasted R&D budgets, and corrupt senators who need big military contracts to keep their state going (you could even blame them for the wars).

You could also complain about poor funding for veterans care and bad decisions made when fighting in a desert (the first time, with boots melting and helicopter unable to fly in the sand - mistakes were made, i'm sure the military has been in Iraq long enough now to have learned from them)

But you can't complain about the effectiveness of the US military. (Well maybe as a diplomatic tool, they are not very effective... Maybe drone strikes make more people hate America, and that reduces your security... Maybe...)

@ora- And most of those complaints can be attributed again to congress since congress approves military budgets, those senators are in congress, an even the drones could potentially be tossed to congress since the Armed Forces Committee could impose restrictions on drone strikes.

Yeah, lots of things you could say, but i think i agree that the american military machine is one of the most effective arms of the US government.

Whether i agree with how it is used or funded is a different matter. It is a testament to what the US can do when it agrees on something (and unfortunate that this thing happens to involve killing human beings - but then i'm the kind of pacifist who doesn't think war justifies killing)

@ora- when I was studying to be an Army officer in college (before leaving for various reasons) I was studying to be a Civil Affairs Officer. really hoping for it. They do the face to face negotiating on the ground, that nation building part and trying to win the hearts and minds, I wanted to try to turn the tide from kill target A mentality to a convince target A that I am not here to ruin his life or end it. Of course I am not opposed to killing if my life is endangered but I wanted to try to mitigate killing the best I could. Now I am pursuing possibly becoming a police officer, die to recent events in our country.

@"that nation building part and trying to win the hearts and minds, I wanted to try to turn the tide from kill target A mentality to a convince target A that I am not here to ruin his life or end it"

Pity you didn't finish, but how well did that work in Iraq?? Sure there are now Sunni and Shia militias who probably hate each other more than the US, but i'm not sure that is a success of the 'winning hearts and minds' campaign...

At least you get to vote for who commands your armed forces. The head of our armed forces is whoever is born at the right time into God's favourite family; currently Liz II.

TCS- wait so the queen actual'y has power?

TBF, whatever else one might say about the Iraq war (and there's plenty to say), it'd have gone better if we'd had an actual 'winning hearts and minds' campaign from the start, instead of the 'kill Saddam, obliterate his government, and chase WMD ghosts' campaign we actually went with. Maybe then we'd have avoided the disasters that took place immediately after the invasion, like de-Ba'athification and disbanding the existing Iraqi military. (The invasion itself can be considered a disaster, but that doesn't mean later implementation fuckups didn't make things significantly worse.)

ETA: replace "disaster" in my previous comment with "disastrous policy decision(s)".

Also, let's add "going to Iraq without sufficient personnel for the nation-building task we ended up trying to achieve." Of course, it's not clear any realistic quantity would have been enough.