Does Military Service Matter in a President?
Perry stressed his service on the campaign trail and said that men and women in uniform would prefer one of their own over a commander in chief who “never served a day in the military.” This was the basis for more shots at Obama than his primary competitors. “The president had the opportunity to serve his country I’m sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn’t what he wanted to do,” Perry told a crowd in Iowa a year ago.
One might draw a correlation between the lack of military representation among nominees and voters’ feeling on military and foreign policy. Gallup polling has steadily shown just one percent of voters this election cycle ranking foreign policy as a key issue at the ballot box, with similarly low or even just trace concern for war, weaker military defense, or national security.
The campaign trail seems to reflect this as well, as the looming defense sequestration that will ax nearly $500 billion from the military has been a topic reserved for impassioned lawmakers in affected districts instead of a priority for the national candidates.
The trend also may indicate that voters don’t think military service is a prerequisite to fully comprehending and executing the role of commander in chief.
The presidential race isn’t alone in its faltering military representation: The number of veterans in the 112th Congress is just over 20 percent, the lowest number since World War II and a full 50 percent less than the number of veterans in Congress in 1975. There hasn’t been a draft since the Vietnam War and the conflicts since then have included the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the conflict in Afghanistan.
That’s not to say military service hasn’t become an issue this campaign cycle. The biggest headline-maker in this area — and one of the nastiest races — has been the effort of Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot in Iraq who lost both legs in the line of duty, to unseat Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.). “She is a hero, and that demands our respect, but it doesn’t demand our vote,” Walsh has said. “All she does, guys, is talk about her service.” Duckworth, calling Walsh “an extremist loudmouth for the Tea Party,” has accused the congressman of denigrating military service “for his own political gain.”
But politics and military don’t always mix, as evidenced by the reluctance of recent highly decorated servicemen to jump into the ring.
Gen. “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf’s celebrity during the Gulf War stoked speculation about whether he would run for political office, but instead he retired to Florida. Four-star Gen. Colin Powell stirred similar speculation, but he’s since alienated much of his Republican Party’s base. And even though a Gen. David Petraeus run is allegedly causing heartburn for Obama, the current CIA director has repeatedly asserted that he has no political ambitions.
Romney could put military service on his ticket by picking Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who was a lieutenant colonel in the Army, served a total of 21 years on active duty and reserves, and speaks proudly of his daughter’s service as a platoon leader in Iraq. “I did get a little bit emotional,” McDonnell said of his daughter’s harrowing war-zone stories. “But she didn’t. She got the job done.”
But both tickets this year may just be comfortable with military service being low on voters’ checklists.
There’s a down side as well…we almost had John Kerry, and might have had Wesley Clark.
Experience of any kind didn’t matter last time apparently.
Well, in answer to the question posed, I offer up the following – ‘The Anti-American Commander-in-Chief Tasks His Military Brass…To Do What?…Pouring Fuel Onto A Combustible Flame…Law of INTENDED Consequences’ – http://www.adinakutnicki.com
So, PJM posters/readers can extrapolate from the above.
Bingo!
Howdy Cousin OSC,
yeah, sadly but obviously true.
Best Regards,
“That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
Infuriating.
From what point of expertise does this Obamabot speak?
Does he think that putting the imprint of your Gluteus Maximus on a seat in the White House situation room while others took care of OBL qualify Obama as a goddamned war hero?
Why doesn’t BHO just award himself the Congressional Medal of Honor. Might just as well. He earned it just as much as he did the Nobel Prize in Peace.
These awful people cannot be dispatched from Washington soon enough.
I will award myself a few of those cheap medals after the election and then have my image placed on Mount Rushmore and then on the Moon and Mars too. My friends in the Muslim Brotherhood will probably want to carve my image out of one of those old pyramids rather than tear them all down. But in the mean time I am having too much fun watching you wingnuts and teabaggers fighting against your own nominee as this is all part of my grand plan. America is dying. I am the reason. America is what is wrong with the world. You have to suffer. I can not believe you ever even thought I was an American. No, I am not. I am a world citizen. Borders are illegal in my eyes. Plus, you stole this land anyway and built it on the backs of Black men like me. You will not have your guns when I am done with you. You won’t have your Bibles either. You won’t even have a nation. I have not even begun to transform you. You will change. I will make you. Feel free to vote for me or just stay home. I hate you. I hate your children. I hate your parents for having you. See you in November–suckers–losers. I am Barack Obama and I will have at least four more years. More likely about 40 more years.
“Why doesn’t BHO just award himself the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
LBJ falsified a one flight observer mission in 42′ in order to get awarded the Silver Star (which he didn’t earn). Democrat leaders are demagogues by nature and will falsify awards or honors to secure trust of the public. Kerry being the last example. They long pretend to be men in order to fool men.
Interesting.
Link, please?
I don’t believe that Obama’s gluteus maximus was even in that seat. The photograph looks ‘shopped. His image is comparatively too small.
Oh, and by the way…
Why Barack Hussein Obama finally agreed to the killing of Osama bin Laden
Hell, I’d just like to see a president who hasn’t been at Bohemian Grove, wearing a black robe, chanting, and raping kidnapped paperboys under a giant owl statue.
…Or whatever the heck it is they do.
In all seriousness, can we get a president who has NEVER played golf?
Ike played golf, and comparatively speaking, he wasn’t all that bad.
It would be nice, kind of a throwback to ancient Greek democracy; no participate in the the Greek phalanx and the blood spilling, no get to vote, and no get to be president to order other men to do the killing you were not up to doing. But I suppose we’ll just have to put up with the over-representation of rich lawyers getting to make the laws, judge the laws, and execute the laws under Pax Americana. What a conflict of interest when you have to live under the rule of lawyers in an administrative state loosely termed a democracy;no wonder scumbags never get executed, because the gravy train would stop if the execution counted as part of the speedy trial requirement. If lawyering was rocket science, we’d never have got to the moon.
“Obama lost the veterans’ vote by 10 points to former POW Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) four years ago.”
That’s not nearly as significant as it would seem on the surface, as most veterans are male and older, naturally inclined Republican voters.
Indeed. In fact, the 10% is a damning statistic. It should have been MUCH higher.
Gingrich would later say of his choice to get Vietnam War student deferments that “given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over.”
Next time you see Newt, tell him he didn’t miss a thing and was probably much smarter than me back then. And please add that by enlisting in the Michele Bachmann Brigade, he can make up for it, especially if he fires a few BeeHive rounds at John McCain and Marco Rubio, both of whom appear to have joined the Muslim Brotherhood Brigade.
“Beehive is an anti-personnel round fired from an artillery gun. The round is packed with metal flechettes which are ejected from the shell during flight by a mechanical time fuze. It is so called because of the ‘buzzing’ sound the darts make when flying through the air. It is intended for use in direct fire against enemy troops.”
Nuclear weapons have made service in the military less relevant.
This may also be a lull. In another ten years or so we’ll have more veterans of the Afghan and Iraq wars eligible to run for president.
Military service should be measured like business experience. It shouldn’t be the be all and end all. It should be an item on the resume. What about the person who is ineligible for military service? Would that make him unfit to serve as president?
Frankly, yes. What about the person who is ineligible for college? Would that make him or her unfit to be a brain surgeon? And while off topic, consider this hypothetical: do you think the general staff and civilian command should be concerned about disciplining PFC Alvin Doe and Bevis Butthead for burning a copy of contraband Mein Kamph or should they instead be concentrating on shutting down those concentration camps that gassed six million Jews?
????
You seriously think that being 4F should disqualify a man for the Presidency???
So, if a man is an outstanding patriot, a born leader, well read in the Founding Fathers, history, and political philosophy, experienced in business, highly intelligent, scrupulously honest, and courageous in standing for the values that made America great, we shouldn’t elect him because he has FLAT FEET?!?!?
That nukes have made the military less relevant is far from the truth. After WWII, the US tried to defend itself with a shield of nukes and allowed the Army, Marines and Navy to waste in favor of the Air Force. Then the Russians and Chinese got nukes. Then Korea happened. That was very nearly a loss as understrength, badly trained and equipped Army units were scraped together in Japan and rushed in. It would have been the perfect time to use nukes, against those advancing Communist hordes. Didn’t happen. In fact, publicly stating the desire to use nukes helped get MacArthur canned. Vietnam was another example along with countless brushfire that saw Communist influence spread worldwide.
Nukes give a false sense of security. They seem powerful, and they are, but only against attack and then only if the enemy thinks the leadership will actually use them against the invaders and their home country. You can’t use them again those attacking allied nations nor to pressure a country into seeing things your way. Nukes offer only two choices: use them and take the severe lumps the world will dish out, or surrender. Of course, if one had a conventional military worth its salt, that would be a third option, one that nations and enemies would know would be used.
Also think about terrorists. They are essentially either stateless or don’t care if there is nuclear retaliation. Perhaps they even see such retaliation as a good thing as it would mobilize millions of fence sitters to their cause. Conventional forces are needed to handle them, not nukes, that is unless one day we are willing to level terrorist supporting countries.
It is difficult to understand the proper role, and terrible misunderstandings about nuclear weapons. I served as a Junior Officer aboard a Ballistic Missile Sub, and am quite familiar with both the nuts and bolts details and strategic issues (as a member of the Emergency Action Message team, I was required to have read and understand the mechanics of the then current Nuclear War Plan).
Observations:
- post Hiroshima, most nice nations, including America, have been reluctant to actually use nucs . . . I count this as both a blessing and common sense.
- the idea of ‘MAD’ (Mutually Assured Destruction) while more than awful, also helped persuade rational people sitting on vast stockpiles of nucs that helped persuade the guys in charge that actually using them was *not* a good idea for anyone . . . as the silly movie says: “this is a strange game; there is no winning move.”
- I vividly recall to this day laying awake at night wondering whether I would be able to ‘do what it takes’ as my litte part of authorizing a nuclear strike. No one involved would discuss it; much too private, and we were subject to intense scrutiny. I know I comforted myself w/ the reasonable assurance (based only on my own assessments) that we would never conduct a first strike. I’m AOK to this day with a retaliatory strike; that is the heart of deterrence. I honestly do not know to this day whether I could have signed up for a single warhead strike.
- Robert Macnamara used the perceived vast power of nucs to shred the strength of the conventional military. With my last dying breath, I hope he goes to hell.
Very Best Regards,
“Gen. “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf’s celebrity during the Gulf War stoked speculation about whether he would run for political office, but instead he retired to Florida. Four-star Gen. Colin Powell stirred similar speculation, but he’s since alienated much of his Republican Party’s base. And even though a Gen. David Petraeus run is allegedly causing heartburn for Obama, the current CIA director has repeatedly asserted that he has no political ambitions.”
If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years, I would say the penitentiary, thank you.
It’s not the military service that’s important as much as it’s the type of military service. Not in the sense of Occupational Specialty (MOS) but as a reflection of the individuals character. Was the individual a suck up to his superior officer, a sycophant? A REMF who’s focus was on personal advancement? Or did the time in the military reveal a hard charging, problem solving, leader of warriors like, say, Patton?
Was the individual a screw up, screw off, or competent? That’s what’s important.
One can always have “harder core” military service: combat service support trumped by combat support trumped by combat arms trumped by Infantry trumped by Airborne trumped by SF/Rangers trumped by Delta. How about different branches of service … does flight deck crew on an aircraft carrier trump artillery crew? How about Jefferson and Adams … they were never in uniform but pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”. Today in Afghanistan there are (for example) Department of Agriculture employees who assume much greater risk than many active duty service members. Where does one draw the line?
I can only speak for myself. Anyone who served his country in the military served his country. Everyone in the service is risking his life at some level, and is doing a difficult job at far less pay than he would make in civilian life. I served as a field medic in peacetime; I thank God I was lucky enough to hit a whole four-year stretch when we were not at war and not under a serious threat. I don’t consider my service as less than anyone else’s, though obviously I respect and admire those men who were tried in the fires of battle, especially those who chose to risk their lives on a voluntary basis.
I most definitely do *not* put people who were on a congressional oversight committee in the same category, as some of my liberal friends did to excuse themselves for voting for Mr. Obama.
Personally, I not only believe you should not be allowed to be Commander in Chief if you haven’t served, I believe that you should have to have served your country in order to vote. Of course, people who have true concientious objector status could do some kind of Peace Corp type thing to qualify for the vote, though I wouldn’t vote for them.
Thanks for your response.
I agree with you that, in most cases, it’s not too productive to try to compare the difference in various services. What matters is that a person stepped forward when their country called. I salute anyone who served, especially but not exclusively in service more dangerous and difficult than mine.
I’m also sympathetic to the “Robert Heinlein – Starship Troopers, the novel” (http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(novel) ) POV which you expressed: “I not only believe you should not be allowed to be Commander in Chief if you haven’t served, I believe that you should have to have served your country in order to vote“.
Some Heinlein analysts – sorry, I don’t recall which ones – insist that Heinlein meant that only those who had been in GOVERNMENT service – as opposed to military service – should be entitled to vote. In other words anyone who has worked for the government in any capacity, including as a non-military bureaucrat, would be allowed to vote. It’s quite a different picture when you paint it that way. How would you feel about a DMV clerk getting to vote when you, a free-enterprise loving business owner who employs many people but has never worked for the government, can’t?
In the “Starship Troopers” universe, there was only one kind of government service: military service.
Heinlein was a Naval Academy grad and (by default) a military officer.
I wonder how much of that played into his assertions in Starship Troopers about military service leading to elected office and citizenship, or whether it was just a modern twist on Spartan culture.
I think it is very clear that RAH distinguised between a civil servant, who could quit at will, and a sworn member of the Federal Service, subject to military discipline.
When we speak of service to the nation, we mostly think in terms of Military Service, and we think of Military Service from the viewpoint of “…no greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his fellows.”
I think I have come to agree with what Bob Heinlein was trying to say. Voluntary and arduous public service of some determined length, should be a requirement for full citizenship and the privilege to vote in democratic elections within this nation. If an individual chooses not to so serve, then that person would enjoy all of the rights and privileges of US citizenship, in public or private, before the bar or in commerce, except that the right to vote in elections would be forever denied.
What the equivalent of Military Service would be to qualify as sufficiently arduous as to satisfy the citizenship requirement can be a matter of debate, but the value of such a system should be obvious. Such a system of enfranchisement self- selects those individuals who, at least once in their lives, are willing to put the safety and well being of their fellow citizens and the nation ahead of their own, even to the point of death. Perhaps people selected in that manner would vote in a manner that reflected their commitment to liberty and good governance, as opposed to the patterns we now see from the takers who have discovered that they can vote themselves the national treasure.
I don’t see 90% of the current population of entitlement queens , race hucksters, and populist shills voting under that system.
When we speak of service to the nation, we mostly think in terms of Military Service, and we think of Military Service from the viewpoint of “…no greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his fellows.”
This is true, but from my veteran’s perspective, I believe more people serve the country than just those in military uniforms. Does the honest cop serve the country? How about the firefighters, both those who work in cities and those who fight wildfires like we had in Colorado recently? IMO, they most definitely provide service to the nation even if they’re unpaid volunteers or work in small towns. The same applies to paramedics and people like utility linemen who serve us all.
How about the people who go to work each day, do an honest day’s work, raise their families and pay their taxes? Sure, they’re not risking their lives for the most part but without them, where would we all be?
IMO, military experience is valuable for an aspiring Commander-in-Chief but not mandatory. Respect for the military, a willingness to learn about the military and a desire not to needlessly waste their lives is more important to me. IMO, Obama does not qualify, but then he’s the most unqualified individual to sit in the Oval Office in living memory if not all US history.
I really hadn’t thought much about the issue, but, somehow, I’m troubled by it.
I’m a ’66 to ’70 USMC Veteran.
FDR was an assistant secretary in the Navy Department when the US entered WWI. He wanted to resign and take a commission in the USN but Secretary Daniels asked him to remain. Nevertheless, FDR conducted an inspection tour of the Western Front under difficult and dangerous circumstances. He noted hat US forces lacked heavy artillery and arranged for portions of the batteries of US battleships of the Atlantic Fleet to be removed from their mounts and temporarily converted into field pieces to support US land forces. FDRs time on the Western front was so arduous that he contracted double pneumonia. I believe this is discussed in Andrew Robert’s book, Masters and Commanders”.
Absolutely correct!
It should be added that Eleanor did the job by proxy throughout WWII. The ‘Stars and Stripes” recurring cartoon was the landing craft instructions by the grizzled old First Sargeant “First wave has to dig a foxhole for Eleanor”. Really, she put in more combat zone time that most ‘W Pointer RAs. When she wasn’t on the front line she showed up at war production plants, steel mills, ship yards, coal mines amd any place else that needed a pat on the back to keep production high.
IMHO, it’s not necessary that a president be a war hero, but there is something slightly contemptible about a man who avoided any military service sending other men off to war.
On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth, Golda Meir and Margret Thatcher all sent men into battle with, IMHO, perfect moral credibility.
Agree again, but more vehemently!
For a Commander in Chief to publicly display disdain and utter contempt for those serving under his command while lying to their face is reprehensible enough to render him unfit for command! If he/she could at least muster a crusp salute instead of those ‘hi y’all’ waves it could be a step in the right direction it would be ‘in mitigation’ but not worthy of pardon.
They have to learn that RHIP but more importantly RHIR!
RHIP/RHIR – could not agree more. One of the first rules of leadership I learned was to recognize responsibiity up and down the chain of command.
please note the current Queen served her country in uniform during the blitz in WWII.
Yes, although I was referring to Elizabeth I.
“Though I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, yet I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of King of England too…”
Elizabeth’s address to her troops at Tilbury Fortress, 1588.
everybody needs to go take a look (google search) at the great interceptor’s selective service registration. the form has the date ’80 inside the seal. from what i understand, the post office has never used anything but full dates, like 1980, 1981, etc. now if you will look even more closely you will see how the 80 is actually the number 08, backwards, as in 2008, the year the pretender seized control of the fed.
just another coincidence we should accept in faith, i’m sure. its probably just racist or sexist or some other bad name, just to bring it up. after all, what’s character matter to people making a living on the dole?
however, isn’t fabrication and presenting forged federal documents a felony? and a high crime? more executive privilege for sure. a dictator can’t break the law i guess. if i were romney i would seriously begin to watch my six, now that mr. transparency is falling further and further behind in the polls. fascists do not like to contemplate loss, eh pootin/chavez?
We’ve had great Presidents with no military experience, great Presidents who were ex-generals and pretty much everything in between, but also awful Presidents in both cases. It’s clearly best if a President has some understanding of the military (Clinton, clearly, despite actually doing a pretty good job otherwise, did not) so that he can function well as Commander in Chief, but actual military service doesn’t seem a prerequisite or a hindrance to the holder of the office.
Indeed the former Worst President had military experience.
Carter was too keenly aware of the lethality of America’s arsenal, and so tried to rescue the Iranian hostages without hurting anyone. A fool’s errand, and a waste of a lot of people’s time, effort and lives.
D
Trivia: Who are the only two Presidents in the 20th Century who are graduates of military academies? A: Eisenhower (West Point) and Carter (Annapolis).
Trivia: Who was the first President who had no military record? A: Martin Van Buren.
Trivia: Name two major wars from whom no veterans have ever become President. A: Korea and Vietnam. Carter was on sea duty during Korea but was not deployed into the war zone. George W. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.
Trivia: Which President logged the most military service? A: Zachary Taylor, whose 40-year military career encompassed War of 1812, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, and the Mexican-American War.
JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I all served in the Navy. Can we say that naval service is a strike against a candidate?
Who knows.
We do know that WJ Clinton became president during the advent to the Millenium representing the parents of and the generation that came of age during the Vietnam War. The socially and economically privileged, with some honourable exceptions, in that generation declined – possibly with good cause – to become a part of that war that lesser, common, young men WERE DRAFTED to fight.
These same persons do not seem to remember, or they don’t care, that this Vietnam War, as were most of the others in the 20th century, was started and escalated for Americans by the presidents of the Democratic Party. AND that war was ended by one of the most excoriated presidents in recent history. Vilified by the very same groups with their mentors in legacy and Hollywood media and elite academic institutions who beat the drums and blow the trumpets for their love-ins for Democratic Party candidates. To the most tawdry of the bunch in the present White House incumbent.
Nor do these “feel your pain compassionate liberals”(progressive democrats) seem to remember that during that war WJ Clinton was disporting himself – in his habitual boys will be boys manner – in Oxford England with occasional visits to the then Soviet Union prison camp. While the openly dismissed and disregarded John McCain was enjoying the hospitality of those humane and compassionate guards of the North Vietnam prison camps. Vietnam, as are the Soviet Union/Russia, China and their ilk, now honoured members of the UN with votes on human rights abuses of other nations.
Yesterday’s news. Things change. We move on. Military service and personnel, boo-hiss. Feel your pain compassion anyone?
Twenty Year Navy verteran with two trips to the sandbox, first in Desert Storm, and the second in Enduring Freedom. No President can be all things to all people. I don’t think mandatory military service should be an exclusionary measure. I don’t think military service alone makes anyone anything more special, but it does give them some experience in military matters, depending on the type of service. An officer in charge of men in battle has vastly different experince from a guy was a ship welder for 4 years. That is by no means a disparegment of the ship welder, whose job is important to keeping a ship in good repair.
Twenty Year Navy veteran here with two trips to the sandbox, first in Desert Storm, and the second in Enduring Freedom. No President can be all things to all people. I don’t think mandatory military service should be an exclusionary measure. I don’t think military service alone makes anyone anything more special, but it does give them some experience in military matters, depending on the type of service. An officer in charge of men in battle has vastly different experience from a guy was a ship welder for 4 years. That is by no means a disparagement of the ship welder, whose job is important to keeping a ship in good repair.
Even those who may have been combat arms officers may not have the temperament to be president. A president has defense secretary and the joint chief’s for a reason. It’s too bad Congress doesn’t take its job seriously when it comes to vetting cabinet positions. Ronald Reagan was only in the military for three years and none of it in combat or even overseas, yet he was near universally loved by the military. I promise there will be no outpouring of love and respect for Carter like there was for Reagan. Even John McCain will never reach Reagen-esque respect; of course, he has squandered most of his hero status.
“those who may have been combat arms officers may not have the temperament to be president”
I think that the evidence of history argues against your conclusion.
Combat Arms — Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan (US Cavalry for 3 years before transferring to Air Corp then to the Hollywood Brigade), Bush I, Bush II
The only outlier is Ford, who you could argue was hamstrung by “The economy he inherited”
Non-Combat Arms — Johnson (who was a zampolit & it seems he John Kerry’d his way into a Silver Star), Nixon and Carter
[Yes I put Nixon in both groups since he was a base commander but not in combat arms]
Depends on the person; Kerry hell no, Clark heck no, Petraeus who knows, West Hell Yes!
does a president need to have military experience to give the troops the weapons and supplies needed to win a fight?
does a president need to have military experience to make the hard decisions?- if we go to fight then we go to annihilate and win
we all know that there are plenty of miscreants and swine in the military, many of whom are climbing the ladder at this very moment for the sole purpose of getting that much needed “street cred” amongst those who feel it is a prerequisite to high political office
hell, there is even some support for pretreaus as v.p. here in these threads only because he “served in the military”
Obvious military experience is very thin here. I was an Intelligence Officer on the JFK. The high point of that was the Yom Kippur War.
What it does give you is the ability to establish a relationship with the military. Being called CINC (Commander in Chief) does mean something.
Also you get a service rep and that travels like the wind. Nobody liked the cut of Kerry’s jib, though he did marry a better man’s fortune.
Clinton, what with his draft dodging and the like had horrible rapport simply because of his insolent contempt. I hurt his effectiveness, like he cared. 911 didn’t happen on his watch.
Military service matters if the guy has his sh*! together and has the necessary attributes to be the Commander and Chief. Doesn’t matter a damn if the man is a fool.
I have never understood the unspoken requirement that POTUS had to have military experience. As a 10 year Vet I saw a lot of total douchebags in uniform that had no business ever making it out of basic, much less holding elected office of any kind.
I would much rather my President have a Love of this Republic and an appreciation of what American exceptionalism means. I know plenty of people that never wore the uniform but are no less Patriotic than someone that did.
Understanding what quality leadership means isn’t solely a military idea. A successful businessman can understand that as much as a military commander, sometimes more so.
Military service, No. Knowledge of and respect for the military, yes. Both Clinton and Obama eschewed knowledge and respect for things military.
A lot of things in military service appear poorly or even not at all in words. One has to be there to have a chance of figuring it out in the easiest way. Being a veteran does not mean one has learned it.
Wilson made horrendous national defense mistakes in peacetime.
FDR was in management of Navy affairs in WWI. The Navy guns pulled from ships were not done after WWI. He saw them made into exceptionally nasty railroad artillery. The barrels for that were saved and contributed to being giant bunker penetrators in the Iraq War.
FDR made horrendous mistakes in peacetime. He came within an ace of getting rid of all active duty Army officers. The total amount the Army was spending for tank and armor vehicle development as WWII approached was an amount which would purchase one middle-priced Packard automobile. He stopped the Army Air Corps from learning how to navigate out of the sight of land; I think it was 1938. They could navigate by road map, railroad tracks, and homing on radio stations. In 100% overcast, stay on the ground. In 1941, the B-17s had to be led by Navy navigators to get to Hawaii and the Philippines. On December 8, they were socked in at Clark Field, P.I. and had to wait until clearing to take off. The clearing was full of Japanese bombers.
Truman participated in the assassination of the independent military in 1948 when an independent Air Force was created. The service chief’s heads were rolled into the Joint Chiefs basket, and all were replaced by civilian Secretaries in control of each branch. Service chiefs were now to give advice, and they learned they should wait until a question is asked; otherwise they can concern themselves with other things. They must not say anything contrary to White House doctrine. The White House controlled strategy and tactis. Since then, the civilian politicians have controlled the military. Hitler did that with his folks and we know how that turned out.
In Korea, the field commander was killed. President Truman replaced the Theater Commander and OK’s a new field commander. The Navy-Army had 5 more amphibious landings just about ready, which would turn the Chinese Army into terrified pieces of suchi. Finding out about this, President Truman cancelled them and ordered that there shall be no more amphibious landings in the Korean Peninsula. !!
President Kennedy caused a giant military defeat when he signed the Laotian Peace Treaty, which rested on assuming Laos to be a neutral country. Laos was neutral in the sense that Bulgaria was neutral under Khrushchev. Geographically, in SE Asia, Laos if the hallway to all the bedrooms. President Kennedy did another one when he chickened out on landing at Hanoi and chickened out on landing at Vinh and advancing up the river and over the hills to the Thai border.
President Johnson . . . where to begin?
President Roosevelt participated with the Navy when both of them screwed up. Iwo Jima had no water supply, depending on the rainwater traps feeding into cisterns and on boat-delivered water. No one thought of scraping that stuff in the Utah salt flats up and dropping it on Iwo when it rains. The Navy asked the President if they could use poison gas. Use was refused as it would be use of an inhuman weapon. The Navy should have said, Iwo will be a blood bath, etc. Therefore, may we use poison gas, or should we just instead go upwind at night and release Carbon Dioxide when the wind level is low?
It never ceases to amaze me what a poor job civics teachers in government high schools have done over the years.
Article 2 Section 1 describes minimum qualifications to be President.
Article 2 Section 2 provides a job description.
Since the primary responsibility of the President is to be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, and the various state militias in times of war”, it is important for the President to have a thorough understanding of military affairs.
To learn the chain of command, etiquette such as saluting, polishing brass, marching, and the UCMJ is more than Clinton or Obama can claim. Combat experience makes him less likely to foolishly commit forces to war.
Nowhere do I recall the Constitution describing the President’s job as the Chief Manager of the Economy.
You didn’t quite get the message – a lot of readers of Starship Trooper didn’t.
The requirement for citizenship was a term of “Federal Service”, which included military service and a lot of other things. However, one entered the Federal Service by volunteering unconditionally to serve in whatever duty one was assigned to – soldiering, clerking, or “terraforming Venus”.
One point expressly addressed in the book was that anyone could volunteer for Federal Service, regardless of physical fitness or even serious handicaps which disqualified the volunteer for military duty. The Service would find something for the volunteer to do – “counting the hairs on a caterpillar by touch” was the example given in the book.
The important point was not that all citizens were military veterans, it was that all citizens had volunteered for a term of public service with the strong possibility of military duty.