Tuttle8 said: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.
Tuttle8 said: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.
kamerer said: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.