Military Experience

Am I getting this right? General Eisenhower didn't have ANY military experience... um... no. I believe he did. If "Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe" in WWII doesn't count as military experience, then I guess my paltry decade of service to Uncle Sam's Misguided Children doesn't count either. And, I was really hoping for a pension too...;)
Click to expand...

That happy face concerns me because I don't know your statement was made in jest or serious intentions.

But I'll reply anyways; my point was that Eisenhower didn't have any actual combat experience or "boots on the ground" experience, yet he eventually the SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER in the biggest war in HISTORY and then later became PRESIDENT. So what does combat experience count as, really, in the grand scheme of things?
 
Zowie, let me add my .02 and everyone can get back to arguing.

The gist I got out of the OP's question is a possible reference to Clinton not having any military experience.

Personally I feel the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces should have *some* experience, even if it wasn't combat related. Heck, my dad was in Vietnam...painting airplanes in the USAF. Not much action there.

Undecided on the draft. Like others have said, the military shouldn't be a babysitting service, although it does tend to attract the less motivated such as I was.
 
I assure you, ARMY GI, my statement on my eventual pension was made with tongue FIRMLY in cheek. If I make to 20 (or beyond) I KNOW I will have earned it. I been knocked around the block for Uncle Sam, and I look forward to being able to retire reasonably young.

As for the CINC having some military experience, I think it should be required- though not necessarily as an officer. One gets a better appreciation for all the bulls**t that Marines go though as a lance corporal than as a lieutenant. That's why Mustangs are usually the best officers- they've been one of US, and they remember.

What's scary is that when Reagan became president over 2/3 of Congress was vets, and now it is under 30 percent. These are the people who decide my fate and that of my fellow Marines, and they have NO F**KING IDEA of what we can and can't do. Sending Marines to a static defense scenario like Iraq is like using a sledge hammer for brain surgery- wrong tool for the job.

Sometimes, I feel Robert Heinlein was right. Maybe it would be a better world if the veterans took over. Maybe that's the long hours speaking, or the months (heck, YEARS) spent on some foreign land chiming in, but why do people who've never defended squat tell the warriors what to do?
 
I generally prefer the idea of a president with actual military service...active duty at the least, and preferably actual deployment time. However, I wouldn't automatically choose a vet over a non-vet...for instance, for many reasons McCain is one of my last choices. So I guess really it depends.

I think conscription in general (as in, during peacetime) is a waste of money and an absolutely unnecessary infringement on freedom. However I think that any war or conflict worth deploying people repeatedly on a 15-on 12-off schedule (or even 12/12) is worth voluntelling some people for. Maybe with 100,000 more bodies we could come up with a more realistic and sustainable deployment schedule.

I've heard the arguments about how conscripts would be poorly motivated or poorly trained...well, a conscript fresh out of basic is no worse trained than any other private fresh out of basic and honestly I think you might find the morale of conscripts on their only tour comparable to that of many (obviously not all, or close to it) soldiers on their third or reservists on their second.
 
I think conscription in general (as in, during peacetime) is a waste of money and an absolutely unnecessary infringement on freedom. However I think that any war or conflict worth deploying people repeatedly on a 15-on 12-off schedule (or even 12/12) is worth voluntelling some people for. Maybe with 100,000 more bodies we could come up with a more realistic and sustainable deployment schedule.

I've heard the arguments about how conscripts would be poorly motivated or poorly trained...well, a conscript fresh out of basic is no worse trained than any other private fresh out of basic and honestly I think you might find the morale of conscripts on their only tour comparable to that of many (obviously not all, or close to it) soldiers on their third or reservists on their second.
Click to expand...

Or we could just stop meddling in other countries' affairs...

The draft/"mandatory service" (:rolleyes:) is a horrible idea for two main reasons:

1. It is slavery.
2. It would give the government an endless supply of cannon fodder, which is the absolute last thing we should do right now.
 
thallub said:
"Should we have mandatory service requirements after high school ?"
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. There are many countries who are doing this, and their military is not even close to being on par with ours. Required service means we have people with guns trying to defend our country that neither want to be there, nor (in some cases) have the ability (Physical or mental) to do so.

I just think it's a bad idea.
 
I'm kind of mixed on the idea of a manditory service. On one hand, my own experiences have left me with a "distaste" for what military politics has become (two things that I believe absolutely never should hold hands), and the idea of my son being a political puppet the way I and many close friends were when we were in makes me nervous.

On the other hand, whenever I see a group of punks walking down the street with the sloppy jeans with the butt hanging half-way to their knees, boxers wagging, and displaying the mental aptitude of a 5 word vocabulary that consists primarily of 4-letter words, I can't help but think the first few weeks of boot might atleast teach 'em how to dress and the rest might help with the notion of responsibility and accountability.

Tough call. I'm feeling rather sarcastic tonight.
 
I served eight years in the armed forces and I would be all for requiring one or two years of public service after college in exchange for financial aid.

Military should be one of those options but not the only one. They should have the option of military, peace corps, or other charitable organizations. Preferably ones that operate inside American borders and benift American citizens.
 
Should we have mandatory service requirements after high school ?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think every able body American should spend a min. of 2-3 years serving their country either in the military, peace corps or something of that nature. (and yes, I'm currently on my 11th year active Army)

Do you believe it would be beneficial if our President had some military experience?
Click to expand...
Beneficial, yes but not really a requirement. He should have an understanding about the military but I think it'd be more helpful these days with a business and diplomacy sense as TheBluesMan said.
 
Ok, hate me for this, but I found the beginnings of the link on this forum. I just watched this movie: www.zeitgeistmovie.com So it kind of added a new perspective for me to the sagging pants vs the proper dress. I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I am with Bluesman....we are not serfs who can be pressed into service at the will of the government...the government is intended to be OUR servant..not the other way around. That being said..I'm currently deployed to Iraq! :)
 
As a volunteering Vietnam vet I believe a draft is needed, young folks have spent the past 40 years in liberal public school from which GOD, patriotism and military have become dirty words.

I seen great solders who were draftees many were natural leaders who remained in the service 20+ years.

To compare the draft to slavery is a poor comparison, it shows a lack of understanding of true slavery. If using that method I as a taxpayer am a slave since I would go to jail unless I paid or lose my home if I don't pay property tax.

If your not willing to go then don't be a hawk on war never ask someone to do the job you don't want to do, but in truth we have become a nation who looks to others to do our work from raising our children,cleaning homes and yes fighting our wars, so sad. So let us continue to sit on the couch playing with the xbox or talk hours on a cell phone and believe your productive but if your not willing to stand on the wall with a rifle and in time when we can no longer get people to enlist then perhaps true slavery will be yours.
 
"If your not willing to go then don't be a hawk on war never ask someone to do the job you don't want to do, but in truth we have become a nation who looks to others to do our work from raising our children,cleaning homes and yes fighting our wars, so sad. So let us continue to sit on the couch playing with the xbox or talk hours on a cell phone and believe your productive but if your not willing to stand on the wall with a rifle and in time when we can no longer get people to enlist then perhaps true slavery will be yours."

I might add that citizens have a duty to raise holy hell the next time a president and his lackeys beat the war drums to invade some country that is not a direct threat to the US. Tell your politicians in no uncertain terms not to support any war that is not in the best interests of the USA.

Some of the current bunch of Republican politicians with no military experience have accused combat veterans who do not support the war in Iraq of being "unpatriotic." Case in Point: Chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss accused a triple amputee and decorated combat veteran, Max Clelland, of being unpatriotic. Unfortunately, Clelland did not fight back.
 
The last Vet to be President?

Trying to recall the Presidents since WW II that have done a tour of duty. Bush has some limited exposure in the Reserve, have we had a Vet in office since JFK?

This is not aimed to knock Top Gun Bill but general information.
.
 
Last edited:
Mandatory service to the goverment? Sure thing. I'll be sure to salute Stalin and Marx, and pledge alegiance to the red flag too. Want me to turn in all my guns on my way there, comrade?

Mandatory service to the goverment is being a SLAVE to the goverment. And last time I checked, America still called itself a free country.

I gotta side with Bluesman on this one.
 
Trying to recall the Presidents since WW II that have done a tour of duty. Bush has some limited exposure in the Reserve, have we had a Vet in office since JFK?
Click to expand...

The last one with wartime combat experience was Bush I, who served as a naval aviator in WWII.
 
I think there needs to be some division here between service to the government and service to the COUNTRY. Yes, the government controls the military (a rather unfortunate side-effect of our current politics), and the military has been used/abused many times as a result of political agenda--the result of way too many factors that go all the way back to the Korean War. But the truth still stands that service to country and service of the government are fundamentally not the same thing, even though politics likes to disguise one as the other.
 
Last edited:
"Bush has some limited exposure in the Reserve, have we had a Vet in office since JFK?"

Yes. LBJ was a combat veteran with a Silver Star awarded by MacArthur in 1942. There is a lot of controversity over that award.

Nixon as a Navy Lt. Commander in the Pacific in WWII. Ford served on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific in WWII. Carter was a Naval officer. Reagan had military service in WWII. Bush I was a carrier pilot in WWII and was shot down.

"Ronald Wilson Reagan enrolled in a series of home-study Army Extension Courses on 18 March 1935. After completing 14 of the courses, he enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on 29 April 1937, as a Private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on 25 May 1937. On June 18 of that year Reagan, who had just moved to Los Angeles to begin his film career, accepted his Officer’s Commission and was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.



Lieutenant Reagan was ordered to active duty on 19 April 1942. Due to eyesight difficulties, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the request of the Army Air Forces (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on 15 May 1942; the transfer was approved on 9 June 1942. He was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California. Reagan was promoted to First Lieutenant on 14 January 1943 and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. Following this duty, he returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit, and on 22 July 1943 was promoted to Captain.



In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit, Culver City, California on 14 November 1944, where he remained until the end of the war. He was recommended for promotion to Major on 2 February 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. On 8 September 1945, he was ordered to report to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on 9 December 1945.



While on active duty with the 1st Motion Picture Unit and the 18th Army Air Forces Base Unit, Captain Reagan served as Personnel Officer, Post Adjutant, and Executive Officer. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the Army Air Forces."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top