Do you find it odd that the three leaders of this country never served in combat but tell the generals how to?

Question

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense never served in combat and yet they thought they were smart enough to tell generals and sargeants how to wage war. Rumsfeld did serve in the US navy as an aviator but never volunteered to go to Vietnam.

These people are worth millions. Check them out at www.wikipedia.com and it will scare you to realize how out of touch our leaders are with the working public.

Cheney got several draft deferments during the Vietnam era and when the draft laws were changed to take married men with no children, Cheney and his wife managed to have a child so he could get deferred again. That doesn't sound patriotic to me and yet they send thousands of others to war.

Let's hear what you think of that.

CM please calm down before you have a stroke. This wasn't about Repubs or dems it was about leaders who have no experience sending troops into battle. I have little love for either party so you can't accuse me of politics here. My complaint was that the three of these men were making decisions without input from the military and expected the military to carry them out.
Thanks to all of you with clear mind who took the time to read the question and answer sensibly and especially to those who have served our country. God Bless You.

CM You seem not to have any faith in wikipedia do you find it odd that both of these other sites have the same information on Mr. Cheney?
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0882164.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882164.html

Mr. Clinton is NOT my beloved. It was under his administration that the cut backs in military began. That was the cost savings used to pump up the economy. Now we have a major military operations in place and our slimmed down military is being stretched to the limits. I never dreamed we would see the National Guards being sent overseas. My God, when their enistments are up I bet less than 40 % will re-enlist. Some of them have businesses that are being neglected.

I hope the Iraqi vets are treated better than the Vietnam vets were, Otherwise who could blame people for telling the government and the military to suck a sour pickle.

Answer 1

It does seem odd that not even one of the top three decision makers have been in combat and yet they make the decisions that seasoned military leaders have to follow. It would be different if they asked more input from the Generals but according to the latest reports, they didn't and they don't. There have been military men who made ho hum presidents because they didn't have a full grasp of running the country. But for Petes sake at least one of the top three should have military experience to provide input and act as liaison between the white house and chiefs of staff.

CM you dished out a hate filled rant about politics. The party was never mentioned in the question only the fact that none of the men sending troops into harms way had any combat experience. You come across as a brainwashed republican worshipper who would vote republican if the party decisions eliminated your job and you had to live in your car in a high crime area. For God's sake focus on the issue or are you unable to do that with all your hatred buzzing in your head?

Answer 2

ive served my country during vietnam and i really hated it when carter told those cowards in canada that it was ok for them to return home.i think that if a man wants to be president he has to be a veteran. also a commander of men and it would be far better if he had served in some type of combat duty leading men or planes and ships into harms way. those men have a love of life and my opinion mccain is a great choice.i would have said john kerry but after a week ago and his brainless remarks he might get a job in an indudtry or operate a jack hammer or dig ditches with a shovel like i did in the late 70s and 80s.kerry was acting like he had been drinking because no sane man would ever say what he did.he seems to be a nerd and the worst kind. how can you botch a joke when you have it written on paper in front of your face?

Answer 3

It bothers me. That said, I am ok that the people in these types of offices are not necessarily veterans. The beauty of our system is a military which takes its direction from our democratically elected politicians, etc.

One thing that bothers me outside of your question is the fact that Congress approves promotions for military officers from Full Bird Colonel on up. Something about that seems wrong. It puts our high ranking officers into conflict of interest with the administration. Speak your mind and risk your stars or sit back and watch rank amatuers play wargames with American men and women.

Ultimately, the President as commander in chief needs to accede to the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he/she needs to foster an environment where people can tell it like it is and not have to tell the Administration what it wants to hear.

The best example is Bush going on and on about how the generals never ask for more men....please....

Answer 4

When you choose your commander in chief by popularity contest this sort of thing is inevitable. The only requirements to be president are native born in the U.S. and over 35 years of age. In 1968 the Yippies ran a hog for president on the grounds that it met both criteria. It's easy to act tough when someone else has to do the fighting for you, however since we re-elected them, it's no ones fault but our own.
wncan47: Gotta agree with you about that pardon, it was a slap in the face to all of us who served. I was Navy, I retired after 20 in 1992 after Desert Storm.

Answer 5

Those who put us in wars should of at least had the experience in war time service. Clinton was also a draft dodger. When we go to war the best thing that the "commander in chief " could do is let the military fight it and keep to poltiics rather than attempting to become an overnight military genious

Answer 6

I think it is totally consistant with their willingness to commit US forces to war with no coherant strategy. Robert E Lee once said " it is good that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it." These men are profitting off the maiming and deaths of thousands and also are the archetects of an attempt to create an Imperial presidency unaccountable, apart from checks and balances not anserable to the American people. It looks like we showed them we still have a working republic after all.
They are war criminals and worse.

Answer 7

All three of those men are rich cowards who wouldn't last a day in a battle Field . Cheney would have a heart attack in boot camp when the drill Sargent said drop & give me 50 .He'd be dead by push-up #3 gueranteed.

Answer 8

Well, ain't that a kick in the pants?
Here's another one for you.
Our newly elected Congress is less than1/4 veteran.
In 1980 it was 3/4 veteran.
Hmmm....

Answer 9

Well alot of presidents never served in the military. I dont think that makes them bad but i think if they did it would give them a differnt perspective on war. Roosevelt never served maybe you should ask a WWII vet what they think of him im sure hes regarded as a fine leader. Also Churchill never served either

Answer 10

To answer the simple 1st part of your Q...
Yes, most definitely, many times.
To answer the 2nd part of your Q....
Hypocrisy is abundant in these United States of America.
Sad, but true.
Only time will tell if this last election will have any impact for the positive.(HOPE,HOPE,HOPE)