Should Military experience be a pre-requisite for being President?
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
You ask that as if I don't know that answer, you also phrase that, as if I adhere to a certain party.
Who's embarrassing themselves at this point?
War of 1812 under Madison (briefly served in the militia but no practical military training or experience)
Mexican War under Polk
Civil War under Lincoln against Davis (Lincoln briefly served in the militia but no practical military training or experience)
Spanish American War/Filipino Insurrection under McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt
World War One under Wilson (no military service)
World War Two under Franklin Roosevelt (none, but was assistant Secretary of the Navy)
Korea under Truman and Eisenhower
Vietnam, all around mess but overseen with Presidents of various military experience
Persian Gulf under Bush Sr.
Middle East under Bush Jr. and Obama (Obama never spent a day in uniform)
Posted earlier. You are making a very clear example of who ignorant you are of American military history. The Commander-in-Chief sets the primary object while the field and fleet commander determine the specific strategy. I have no clue how this is lost on you, aside front he point you are entirely ignorant of the military any general American history.
Don't care what Party you belong to. Simply put I can't fix stupid. You might forget but FDR was a Democrat and Eisenhower was a Republican.
As for the bolded section in your response I would be surprised if you did.
I didn't forget that actually, and? I agree, I can't fix how stupid and ignorant you are, but why point that out to me?
Kay, but what makes my point, that someone with military experience should be the President, any less valid.
Did you ride the short bus to school?
Listen, it's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't even reading my posts. That or you are arguing against what you wish I said instead of what I actually said. Then again, you seem to think that Congress has some critical role in military decision making and the Commander in chief is, well, apparently he doesn't do anything in your world. Or, he makes all the battle plans. I'm not sure what you are talking about because you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
As for what happens if the President isn't smart? 2000-2008 is an excellent example of what happens.
And please, explain how Eisenhower did not make the plans to invade Normandy. Maybe you can enlighten me to the roll Congress played in the invasion at Inchon?
So, you admit you are not as good at talking this as me, by trying to point out BS talking points, that you, yourself did not make? Kay,..it's a bit stupid and typical of a Democratic life suck, but okay.
Congress is in fact supposed to have a VERY CRITICAL role in military decision making.......you get that....right?
Start over,. try again, and try not to sound so f'n stupid. You have more than once chance to do this.
The POTUS should not be involved in the tactical or operational side of warfare. He sets the policy, he sets the ground rules, then turns it over to the military. You don't have to be former military to set the policy for a war.
Then he did a poor job of selecting them (see Vietnam for an example of exactly what I'm talking about).
Debating with you is like talking to a 5 year old. I have no idea where you get what you are reading out of my posts.
You still haven't explained what role Congress has beyond declaring war (which they don't do anymore) in military planning.
Military experience doesn't detract but when look at the actual history of who we've had as Commander-in-Chief in wartime prior military service doesn't factor as much. As has been pointed out many times the President and Congress set the ultimate objectives while military commanders conduct the detailed planning. The Commander-in-Chief has traditionally concerned himself with grand strategy while the military deals with operational and tactical decisions.
This, and this is the way it should be. The president doesn't have to be a veteran to make decisions about using military force. Hopefully he has trusted advisers around him to help balance the necessity and consequences of his decision. As noted previously, the advisers should absolutely not all be yes-men or all bound to the same groupthink. You need the contrary voices who are not timid about their opinions.
When the president makes a decision to use military force he authorizes the generals and admirals to make the necessary plans. Then as CIC he signs off on them.
I've seen the videos of Obama eating Thansgiving dinner with the troops overseas, talking with them. He has a mind-blowing responsibility in his job but he does have empathy for the troops. That is an absolute necessity in any president.
But things can go wrong, in or out of war. In the case of WW2, Eisenhower, and ultimately Roosevelt had to deal with human relations problems among Allied military leaders that required adjustments to strategic plans. Within our military hierarchy there is undoubtedly conflict which requires the CIC's oversight to keep the system running smoothly. To be honest, it should be that way. Let's hope each branch of our military is fiercely independent and self-supporting, and respected as such.
For those not into military history, strategists are constantly making and updating plans for different scenarios in case of conflict. This way they are prepared (or are supposed to be) for when their governments ask them to wage war. As mentioned earlier, Stalin, FDR and Churchill strove to agree on a strategic vision of their war but the really hard work was left to their armed forces which had to carry out their leaders' global plans.
I have an older cousin who flew helicopters in Vietnam then was an instructor in Thailand orienting (ha ha) copter pilots coming over from the States. He retired as a Colonel and his last job involved him flying back and forth from Europe to Turkey on something like a weekly basis. He can't tell us exactly what he did but we think it had something to do with this constantly updating of contingency plans for NATO forces.
Another aside-during the first Gulf War, my cousin told his dad (my uncle) he was worried about the readiness of the helicopter pilots as this was their first war. Of course they did superbly which is a testament to US training and equipment. As Patton said, never take counsel of your fears.
I have an older cousin who flew helicopters in Vietnam then was an instructor in Thailand orienting (ha ha) copter pilots coming over from the States. He retired as a Colonel and his last job involved him flying back and forth from Europe to Turkey on something like a weekly basis. He can't tell us exactly what he did but we think it had something to do with this constantly updating of contingency plans for NATO forces.
Another aside-during the first Gulf War, my cousin told his dad (my uncle) he was worried about the readiness of the helicopter pilots as this was their first war. Of course they did superbly which is a testament to US training and equipment. As Patton said, never take counsel of your fears.
Really is a stark contrast between the Big Three and Hitler who took over the direct daily command of the German army along the Eastern Front in late December 1941. Stalin began the war a constantly meddling Generalissimo but quickly realized that his Marshals, particularly Zhukov, were better suited for command. After the bulk of Red Army was encircled in a series of battles west of the Dnieper River Stalin rapidly delegated authority. Roosevelt and Churchill dealt with the broadest strategic objectives.
