Should our countries leader have to have served in the armed forces?

Question

This would give him/her an awareness of what exactly he/she is doing before comitting troops to combat.

Even better, make their own children join up and go with the 1st wave?

Actually Aztec, it wasn't intended to insult Bush,I was thinking more about Blair. As a former soldier, I believe seving in the military would have given Blair a greater appreciation of what it is like to send men and women to their death for political means.
As, on the whole, the US military isn't very good (sorry this may come as a shock to our american friends), I'm not convinced the experience made any difference to Bush.
Would he still have thought it worthwhile to 'liberate the Iraqi people' if his own daughters were going to be sent to fight is another matter.

Personally I don't believe the liberation of Iraq is worth a single British (or even American) Soldier's life.

Answer 1

This is an interesting question, and I can see the reasoning behind your idea. I am a serving member of the Armed Forces and I would love to see greater foresight at the government level. Nonetheless, the answer to your question is of course 'no', and this can be justified in a number of ways.

From an objective point of view, the leader of the country has to make decisions about a huge number of specialist areas. For example, you could argue that the PM would make better decisions about the NHS if he had worked in a hospital, or that his understanding of the budget would be better if he had worked in a private investment company. There is no doubt that he would make better decisions in all of these fields if he had some degree of practical experience, however it would be impossible for him to have the breadth of experience to make the correct decisions in all areas of his leadership.

The best method is clearly to employ experts in each field, and to listen to their recommendations. This is the system in place in the UK, but a problem exists when the advice provided is influenced by other factor. This is a major problem in most of the public sectors in my opinion.

To bring the answer back in line with the question, I will try to explain how this problem appears to lead to poor military decisions. The Government continues to cut defence spending year after year whilst concurrently expanding the workload our forces have worldwide. How can this ever make sense? I believe that a major factor is the employment of 'yes' men in top military posts. There is too much emphasis on cost saving within the forces, and as a result, senior military personnel focus on nothing else. Promotion is gained by loyally reducing and slashing as directed, and I feel that this often happens despite potential detriment. The military have little or no spare resources, and this is felt most sharply on the frontline. Instead of agreeing with this direction and making cuts, the military chiefs should stand up and refuse. This way the message would reach the PM that he cannot keep commiting personnel and hardware around the world unless he funds them properly.

Furthermore, the reduction of personnel and home base establishments means that the remaining forces are placed under greater pressure for longer periods of time. It is important to allow service personnel time to work in 'normal' jobs occasionally so that they perform better when they are deployed. The idea that UK shore jobs can be performed by civilian organisations and that this will 'squeeze the tail to sharpen the teeth' is a good example of this type of thinking.

There is no doubt that these poor decisions would be avoided by an ex-military leader, and if that were his only function, then it would be beneficial if he had a service background. I have tried to demonstrate however that the real problem is in the decision making process itself. The armed forces are let down by their own leaders, and this starts a chain of poor decision making. Upon reaching the heights of an Admiral or a General, the loyalty of an individual should be downwards towards the services represented - and this means blatent honesty and robust advice to the government.

The PM's role is to prioritise the information he receives from each of his sectors. He cannot be biased by personal affiliation, and he must follow the recommendations of each sector. The idea that his children should be made to serve in the military is an example of personal affiliation, and although this may benefit the military, it would be to the detriment of other important public areas. He needs to gain as much objective experience as he can about each of these areas, and his decision making must be balanced by this.

In conclusion, the key aspect to a leader is breadth of knowledge and experience. This must be coupled by trust in the people who advise him. Those advisors must be honest, and should not be influenced by personal gain. The issue you base your question on can be solved by this sort of honesty. If the PM is told that he can afford to cut spending on the Armed Forces, and that he will still be able to deploy his forces globally, then that is exactly what he will do. The deployment of troops is not an issue. The men and women of the armed forces joined in the knowledge that they would be required to deploy in combat. It only becomes an issue when the capabilites of those personnel are limited because the Government are lead to believe that extensive cost cutting is acceptable. It is not.

Answer 2

No. The President should have intelligent advisers to give him the information he needs to make decisions. The critical issue is to have a leader who can take this advice and act on it appropriately. Henry Ford was once called an idiot and in the resulting libel suit the defense asked Henry Ford a great number of detailed, obscure questions about things which he had no knowledge in an attempt to prove he really was stupid. Finally, after putting up with this line of questioning until he could not take it any more, Henry Ford turned to the lawyer who was asking these questions and made a statement to the effect that if he really did want to know all the silly things that the lawyer was asking, he (Henry Ford) had a row of electric push buttons on his desk and by pushing any one of them could summon men who would be able to find the information and answer the question for him. He did not have to be burdened with knowing all this stuff himself. Same thing applies to a leader of a country or a private citizen in any walk of life: You do not need to personally know everything as long as you know how to get the information you need.

Answer 3

I'm a great believer that Mr Blair would think twice about sending in British forces if they included his own offspring.My son was 19 when he fought in the 2nd Gulf War 2003 while Mrs Blair was crying about sending Euan 120 miles up the road to Bristol Uni.

Answer 4

I think that it makes sense for a leader to realise what he is committing his/her troops to, perhaps first hand experience is the key to this. But then this poses the problem that whatever the leader is required to make a decision, should they have had first hand experience in order to make the right decision?
For instance I don't imagine the Prime MInister uses the NHS!?!
Or should they seek advice from people who have had the experience and know what it is all about?

Answer 5

No. Being in the military doesn't guarantee you're qualified to lead or make decisions.

In addition, the bulk of people in the military never actually see live combat.

Although clearly the purpose of your question is just to insult President Bush. Yawn.

-Aztec276

Answer 6

No, I disagree. You could raise the same argument about anything - why not suggest that the leader should have been a doctor because the NHS is in such a mess. You could go on and on like this.

If people don't want to be sent to wars they don't agree with then you shouldn't join the armed forces in the first place.

Answer 7

I believe they should of had some sort of service yes, or have their children sent into a war that errupts during their term, yeah send the Bush girls to Iraq & Chenny's daughter too!

Answer 8

Interesting perspective. I think it is a good idea on both counts, I don't know how we would enforce it.

I also think that our military mena dn women should not be given experimental drugs

Answer 9

I agree to run a country you need to fight for the country.

Answer 10

It would make the decision to go to more more cautioned and we would know that they really thought long and hard on it