Do you respect a combat veterans take on war more than a civilian?

Answer 1

Interesting question in many ways. Both Hitler and Churchill were combat veterans from the trenches of the First World War and they came away from the experience with widely differing views on life. The last two US presidents to have direct combat experience were John Kennedy and George Bush Sr. Again, very different men with differing outlooks.

To seems to me that the experience of warfare may change the views on life of those who have taken part but it does not change the person's fundamental character. It seems to just draw it into a sharper focus. So to answer the question, it is impossible to generalise. Every individual leader would have to be taken on his or her own merits, regardless of military background.

Answer 2

Of course I would. The veteran has seen 'ground truth.' The civilian has seen nothing more than the TV news.

It is really sad how many people regard the soldier's eyewitness accounts as less relevant than those of some media entertainer with a GED who has never been anywhere or done anything.

I suspect that the main reason that people do not want to listen to the veterans is because the veterans are telling them things that they do not want to hear.

Answer 3

when ever it pretains to something they know about you cannot ask a person that never actually fought and saw combat even if they went over there you can't ask a supply clerk that never saw combat about it as for the politices of war i think we are all even unless your 5 and everyones outlook is different and the kinds of risk that all the other profession"s take are not the same you don't ask a lawyer how to do brain surgery do you how about a 12 year old to do dental work or a factory worker to work security at the pentaogon and so on and so on and so on and the difference between a coach is they may not get to play but they get to see it first hand and you civilans do not trust me the news is not the half of it

Answer 4

Not particularly more or less, except when they give a negative opinion on it. A person who has been there isn't necessarily always right over a person who has not, but a negative take, logically, has to be for a good reason. A positive one may just be patriotic, and not necessarily feasible. As well, some people come out of war unscathed, and others with permanent emotional scars, particularly those on the front lines who survive.

Answer 5

First-hand experience in any field is hard to ignore. Senior NCO's and field-grade officers, it seems to me, tend to have the best "take" on martial matters. (Less so now than in the past, I hope, there's an historical tendency for more senior officers who think "outside the box" to be suppressed.)

Answer 6

it is hard to say..
a combat vet has seen war...
a civilian has watched someone elses view of war on tv.

Answer 7

Not really. The best premiere atheletic coaches in the world aren't necessarily former players. If I can hire Tony Dungy to coach my NFL team, I'm not going to ask him if he ever played, I'm going to ask him how does he coach and look at his record.

Their sacrifice is commendable but their combat experience may or may not help them make the right strategic decisions for the politics of war.

Answer 8

On war? Yeah.

On the politics of war? No.

Answer 9

Sometimes yes sometimes no. If I had to choose between both equally knowledgable people then I'd choose a vet no problem. It just depends on what they have to say and why and how they say it...

Answer 10

Yes. A civilian hasn't been to war, why would I even want to hear what they have to say about it?