Commander in Chief

[73 Jock]

If I were to follow your logic of having CIC separate from the Presidency, I would suppose you would need to...

I don't mean to separate the CIC, I mean to illustrate that if it were separate, one could reasonably expect that a veteran would fill the office.

I firmly believe that a true great leader doesn't necessarily have to have military experience. What I think makes a great leader and President are these:
1. Surround yourself with people that have strengths...
a. Appoint personnel in your office with the military background...
b. Appoint personnel in your office that can provide opposing point of views...
2. Be able to listen...
3. Once gathered significant point of views, be able to execute....what's best for America, not for other countries.

All good points. I suppose I have a gut fear that Hillary or Obama have little or no understanding of the military, zero experience in the application of force, and could not wield Teddy's "Big Stick" with any skill.

On the other hand, VP Cheney evaded service, SD (former) Rumsfeld was a Naval officer, and P Bush....um, nevermind. At any rate, their varied civil/military backrounds have not enabled them to gain sufficient control of Iraq, or even the conventional wisdom regarding it.

Conclusion: I prefer some degree of active duty service and experience based on some simple analysis

kamerer's post is insightful, although others have also pointed out that many civilian Presidents have led well. P Reagan led brilliantly -- although he served out WWII stateside on a med limitation -- making movies no less.

Perhaps it is less the actual military service, as it is attitude toward the responsible use of force.

 

[BillCA]

Is military service a qualifying prerequisite?
No. For example: John "Genghis Kahn" Kerry


Is military service a disqualifer from office?
No. For example, Teddy Roosevelt or Richard Nixon


Is Non-service a qualifying prerequisite?
No. For example, Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover


Is Non-service a disqualifying prerequisite?
No. For example, Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln


The best I can say is that someone who served for 4 or more years, but was not a career officer, has learned some modicum of responsibility and discipline from time in the service. I think career officers may have some difficulties adjusting to a civil orientation at times.

Just a word about National Guard service. Yes, a number of congresscritters got their kids plum assignments in Guard units during Vietnam. And some congresscritters intervened on behalf of a wealthy contributor's spawn to see to it that he was not front-line fodder. Such is a testament to the corrupting influence of politics. But I also knew a lot of WW-II vets who thought Vietnam was a mistake and would have done the same if their kids were stamped 1A.

As to GW Bush being a drunk or coke head while in the ANG and flying F-102's... ain't gonna happen. The F-102 was a good aircraft but it was not a pilot's best friend. You had to stay on top of that aircraft at all times especially with regards to AOA in turns or when landing. Heavy drinkers or drug users usually have short careers in aircraft like this. Even some very good pilots were lost in the early F102 deployment (we lost a family friend who was a top pilot to a landing stall).

 

[HKuser]

However, it was the founders belief that all military units were to be held strictly accountable and subordinate to civil authority. This can be seen within Art I, section 8, clauses 10 thru 16. The State Constitutions were even more explicit about this.

To sum it up, I would give whatever military service a prospective candidate for the Office of the President it's proper recognition. However, it wouldn't be the controlling factor in my choice.

Agreed, a factor to consider, but it shouldn't be a qualification or predominant factor. Grant had lots of combat experience, he was not a great president.

 

[Danzig]

Quote:
I kinda like the method employed in Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Only honorably discharged veterans can hold political office and vote.

"I guess its fortunate for us then that the framers wanted a nation of citizens and not subjects. " - Stage 2


Once again, Stage 2, I am amazed to find my self concurring with you 100%! +1 for that comment.

 

[kamerer]

From Unregistered:

Yes I am happy to shed some light on your poor memory. Do you recall the Iranian Hostage Rescue debacle? Not exactly a brilliant plan.

Since you've been a bit insulting, I'll reply in kind. No, I didn't forget about it. I even vividly recall listening to the early radio news reports of the event before they hit the TV news. But, it was neither a war, nor a systemic military policy as I defined - guess your poor analytic skills glazed over that. Also, recall the failure of the plan was because of poor weather and an aerial mishap at the RP. Far out of control of a sitting president.

To hold someone accountable for something, it needs to be an area they actually supervise and are able to influence and control. Otherwise it's just scapegoating, as you've done.

 

[Al Norris]

Judging from the direction this thread seems to be heading, I'm gonna bring it to an early end.