Commander in Chief

[Unregistered]

I think it would be just as logical to exclude veterans from being able to hold political office. I certainly think it would be good for a president not to have been a career soldier. The President is a civilian position, not military dictator.

I believe we won two World Wars and one Cold War with commanders in chief who were not veterans.

 

[homefires]

I would like to see the day we can enter a conflict of any type without employing any of the Guard or Reserve units be them Navy, Air Force, Army or any others.

Hell we are using Mercenaries now!


There is a reason the CIC position is a Civilian Position! It insures the military powers are retained by the people.

 

[Buzzcook]

In most of America's largest wars the presidents without military experience did pretty darn well.

Madison and The War of 1812

Polk and the Mexican American War

Lincoln and the American Civil War (a month of drilling troops badly doesn't count)

Wilson and WWI

FDR and WWII

Clinton and Kosovo (though that's not a very big war)

Compared to

Truman and the Korean War

JFK and Vietnam (LBJ had 5 or it then back to another military vet Nixon)

Bush I Iraq

Bush II Afghanistan and Iraq (I agree that W's time in the guard might or might not count depending on pov)


The non-military guys have an edge over the military guys imho.

 

[ibfestus]

I am also offended by the denigration...

...of service in the Guard and Reserves. I was a Naval reserve Officer. The only way I could have been a Regular Navy line officer was either through the Naval Academy or augmentation. As it, was I served on continous active duty from June 1967 to Feb. 1973. You can call me a REMF if you want to but you are an [redacted]. I volunteered to join the Navy. I volunteered to be in Naval aviaton. I volunteered to go to a unit that already had orders to WestPac. I volunteered to be the OIC of a Tactical Air Control Party. I volunteered for duty with a carrier based Fighter Squadron, and I voluntarily landed on aircraft carriers over 250 times mostly AT NIGHT.

If you think being in the Guard or Reserves is just a draft dogers ploy, YOU have never been there.

 

[Unregistered]

If you think being in the Guard or Reserves is just a draft dogers ploy, YOU have never been there.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think they are saying that for Bush and some other priviledged children, it was a way to get around service in Viet Nam. I am pretty sure Bush was still a drunk and coke head at the time, so this really wasn't his biggest problem.

 

[Forwardassist]

I rather have a non military President. I just do not see service as a requirement. It is true the better presidents where the ones that did not serve.

 

[ibfestus]

I think that's exactly what they are saying.

As far as Bush being a drunk and a coke head I think that is BS also. Anybody that straps into a F-102 (or for that matter a F-4, F-8, F-104, F-105,A-6, A-5, A-7, or F/A-XXX) and goes flying into the wild blue yonder, well he ain't drunk, ain't high, and has 'nads big as coconuts.

Just one statistic as an example... There were more military aviators killed in accidents (training and operational) between 1965 and 1974 than were killed in combat. If, however, you flew into the water and killed yourself in the Tonkin Gulf in 1970, that is a combat loss and your name is on The Wall. If you flew into the Mediterrean Sea in 1970 (in an identical accident) you were just another REMF.

I had a boss one time that had been drafted in 1967. He spent 9 months in DaNang typing reports. He never left the base. He never even heard an explosion nor was ever in any appreciable peril. He is a VFW post commander and a hero. My best friend was killed on the USS Enterprise on the way to the Tonkin Gulf. He is just another volunteer and REMF that, had he survived, could not even belong to the VFW with his record. Am I P.O.ed?
Freaking A.

 

[Al Norris]

No, ibfestus, that's not what I or anyone else has said.

 

[madmag]

Baloney. Air Guard units flew thousand of sorties and combat hours in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. They served honorably and bravely.

Correct. I guess some people just don't know history. The Air Guard, National Guard, and Coast Guard have served honorably in combat many times from WWII to present day. So, to be fair, let's just keep the facts straight.

Just one example: many more available. Please learn your history!

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/h_AtlWar.html

 

[Unregistered]

As far as Bush being a drunk and a coke head I think that is BS also.

What do you base your opinion on?

Bush admits to having been a drunk, and won't deny that he has used cocaine.

 

[madmag]

And let's put more of this BS to rest.

http://www.mnangmuseum.org/history.htm

The Minnesota Air National Guard's 109th Airlift Squadron, part of the 133rd Airlift Wing, traces its roots to the earlier unit. Minnesota Air National Guard units have served in virtually every major conflict since its earliest days, including World War II, Korea, the Berlin Airlift, Vietnam, and Desert Shield and Desert Storm. More than three hundred members served in the Gulf War.

Where do people get this idea that Guard Units were never were in combat? Just research a little...it's not that hard!

And

http://alguard.state.al.us/history.htm

From 1968-69, 12,000 Army Guardsmen and 10,511 Air Guardsmen were called to serve their country. Over 9,500 Guardsmen were sent to Vietnam. Once again, the National Guard demonstrated combat-ready professionalism, earning over 4,000 decorations during the conflict.

 

[Darren007]

I would like to see the day we can enter a conflict of any type without employing any of the Guard or Reserve units be them Navy, Air Force, Army or any others.

Correct. I guess some people just don't know history. The Air Guard, National Guard, and Cost Guard have served honorably in combat many times from WWII to present day. So, to be fair, let's just keep the facts straight.

Just one example: many more available. Please learn your history!

For 3 months prior to the start of the Invasion of Iraq and for 6 months after, I was stationed in Saudi Arabia. We were originaly sent there for our rotation of "Operation Southern Watch". Then the war broke out. There were a total of 6 Fighter Squadrons stationed there at the sart of the invasion. 2 squadrons including mine were active duty. The other 4 were Air National Guard units. And from what I saw they flew just as many combat sorties as we did.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Imagine for a moment if CIC were an office separate from the Presidency. Military service would be an obvious mandatory requirement for the position. With that in mind, is it responsible to be considering any candidate for that office who has NEVER served in the military?

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

In our current state of affairs, I would have to say it would be IRresponsible for NOT considering a candidate with no military background. History has proven overall that we have done well for ourselves...

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 that are your weaknesses.
a. Appoint personnel in your office with the military background (generals, etc.) that have the credintials to effectively communicate their expertise.
b. Appoint personnel in your office that can provide opposing point of views to effectively have all parameters on the table.
2. Be able to listen, not hear your key appointees.
3. Once gathered significant point of views, be able to execute your intention with clear thought and intent what's best for America, not for other countries.

Just a thought on why I don't think military service is necessarily a pre-requisite...

 

[kamerer]

It is true the better presidents where the ones that did not serve.

I think with a massive standing military organization, which we have effectively had only since the end of WWII, the question needs to focus on that period. Since WWII, that means our "non-service" presidents are Clinton and LBJ (brief, politically motivated "publicity" tour in uniform only doesn't count). Possibly GW Bush, too, since he was never active duty and there remains mystery about his legal and dutiful completion of his guard service. You can classify him where you like.

I do not think they were on average better than Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, GHW Bush? I will concede that Nixon was a less successful president than Clinton and LBJ, but his handling of the military was acceptable.

Thus,

I. Active duty officers with honorable service, wartime or not:

Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
GHW Bush

%. "effective" in handling the military or wars - 100% ( Difficult calls and methodology: 1) Truman brought the Korean war to a halt, preserved a non-communist state and did not create a broad war on the Asian mainland; 2) Nixon wrapped up an insoluble mess created by LBJ and overall eased Cold War tensions.)

II.. No service, "vanity" service or questionable service:

Clinton
LBJ
GH Bush

% effective - 33% to 50% (Only Clinton successfully managed military operations in his time - the other two badly mismanaged wars on their watch If we want to count FDR, it gets complicated, because he badly mis-managed the military preparation prior to WWII, but then handled it brilliantly during the war. If we include him, it goes up to 50%).

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

 

[Unregistered]

Nixon wrapped up an insoluble mess created by LBJ

JFK created that mess, not LBJ.

Its also a little weird that you are somehow counting Carter and Ford on the 100% effective list... how do you figure that?

 

[madmag]

JFK created that mess, not LBJ.

Well at least he started the mess. JFK did send in the first peace keeping or police forces. LBJ used the Gulf of Tokin to make it a real war. We can only surmise if JFK would have gone that far or not?

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

 

[kamerer]

LBJ created the war in Vietnam - JKF had sent advisors, much as we have in Colombia right now (albeit on a larger scale for what was a larger "war"). He had drafted policy plans to withdraw them if escalation happened. LBJ gets credit for Vietnam; It's not a shared fiasco.

I could not find a war that Carter or Ford lost, or a crippling policy strategy they pursued that resulted in a military debacle. If you can find one that would be illuminating. I also do not attribute the general malaise that affected the military in the 70s and early 80s to them, but an endemic hang-over from Vietnam. Carter's work on SALT showed a considered approach to managing Cold War risks, and served a useful framework that Reagan then employed skillfully and built on.

 

[73 Jock]

To all those military service members, Active, Guard and Reserve -- whether you voluntarily sought out hazardous missions and served with distinction, or simply followed orders and performed your assigned duties -- you were willing to place your countrymen's liberty above your personal safety, and the word "honorable" appears on your DD-214. That willingness to sacrifice defines the most noble of the American spirit, and as a citizen of the United States, and a fellow warrior, I thank you for your service.

We did not ask which Americans we were fighting for. America protects the liberty of those who revere the flag, and those who would burn it. America defends the rights of those who celebrate her, and those who petition God to D#mn her.

America demands that citizens express their views, and she demands that they vigorously defend (to the death) the rights of their fellows whose views make their blood boil.

I have acknowedged that Guard/Reserve units fought in Vietnam -- just as I acknowledge that some privileged political scions used influence to avoid the greater likelyhood of serving in that war -- and theirs was still honorable service. If offense must be taken, perhaps it should be reserved for those who "loathed" military service from the safety of Canada or Britain. Otherwise the offended party may consider petitioning General Colin Powell for an apology.

The progressive concept of offense and it's required apology, shares more with radical Islamists -- who riot over a pencil drawing of their icon -- than it does with American values.

 

[Unregistered]

I could not find a war that Carter or Ford lost, or a crippling policy strategy they pursued that resulted in a military debacle. If you can find one that would be illuminating.

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.