We have plenty of politicians in office already. I would feel much better if the man/woman who speaks about war and controls the military would actually have some real idea of what war is. If not this I think each branch of the service should have a representative that not only advises the president, but could override a decision that was made if it was not in the best interests of the people and/or servicemen. We all know more troops without a change in tactics is pointless. Even the men on the ground feel this way. I think that politicians should have little to no say in how our Armed Forces should be deployed. Leave the war to those trained to deal with it.
2007-01-14 09:23:20 · 23 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Now jamie s is thinking.
2007-01-14 09:35:56 · update #1
Hvae any of those great presidents ever had to fight terror? This is a new war with new enemies. We need a new directive for our military.
2007-01-14 09:45:42 · update #2
littlehrs, YES, YES, YES!
2007-01-14 09:50:09 · update #3
While it would be nice to have a president who served there is a reason that we have civilian control of our military. You proposition flies in the face of the US Constitution which you are ultimately sworn to uphold. Dealing with politicians who are seemingly inept is in the job description of every serviceman... unfortunately.
PS- Vietnam was not so much an issue of politicians running the military as it was the erosion of the power of the Executive Branch. Congress thought the president should be running all his decisions through them and it cost us. An issue which will haunt the military and this nation for a long time to come.
2007-01-14 09:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. The US has a government of the people by the people for the people. The constitution says nothing about "of the military, by the military". Lots of the people are not soldiers. I for one dont want a military state and apparently the founders of the nation and writers of the constitution had enough foresight to agree with me... that why they separated the powers to ensure there would be no all military regimes but rather a govt that reflects the broader population, including soldiers and civilians.
Further, thats like saying the CEO of Comcast has to have been a cable repairman or he doesnt know anything about leading the corporation to profitability. Think about it.
2007-01-14 09:32:12 · answer #2 · answered by answers999 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we have always favored non-military men in the executive branch for the reason that we do not want a military coup to take over the USA nor do we want a warmonger at the helm.
they can and should rely on the military staff to advise them on strategy etc and usually do. bush is the exception. he thinks he knows better because he talks to God. he is the worst sort of fool to elect and we all knew it and did it anyway so now we deserve what we get and hope we learn a lesson and keep religious fanatics out of office as well as warmongers in the future.
preachers and generals do NOT belong in the executive branch.
running the country is about a lot more than wars and abortions. it is about everything and we need educated man or woman for the job.
2007-01-14 09:31:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Based on the performance of the current US president, I would think it would be a good idea. However, since the VP seemed to have more control on things than the president perhaps they should limit the extent of presidential powers to both the presidency and VP. Too many bad decision have happened that will cause us problems for the next 100 years.
2016-05-24 01:46:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An interesting concept!! You don't always have wars so the presidents can have first hand knowledge of what it is actually like to fight in a war. However maybe all the presidental canidates should suit up and go battle in Iraq. A crash course in war. Wonder how many would actually continue to run for the seat if they had to go over to Iraq.
One of the many duties a president has is to protect his country and for that they need to run the military!
2007-01-14 10:29:01 · answer #5 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree totally. Most politicians have never been solders and have never been to war. If a soldier (the ones that get shot at, not the lazy generals) gave advice to the president the soldier would know how horrible war really is and would know more than the president if it is worth declaring war, knowing 1st hand what happens if you do.
2007-01-14 09:49:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO, many of the best presidents of the United States had no military experience. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR had no (or very little) military expierence and they did just fine in a time of war. Military experience is an over-rated ability in a commander-in-chief.
2007-01-14 09:30:41 · answer #7 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You raise valid questions, but my opinion is that military service should not be a requirement for the Presidency. There are many people who, for one reason or another, choose to not join the military. I think that limiting the Presidency only to veterans would narrow the potential pool of candidates too much.
2007-01-14 09:29:39 · answer #8 · answered by Wally Buca 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think the president should have to. Should be whoever the American people want. Maybe we should do away with giving the president the "commander in chief" title as well. Have a seperate candidate run for who the military elects for those situations. There has to be some other options..
2007-01-14 09:34:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would certainly raise the level of respect for the position in the ranks,just knowing that the "commander in chief" at least went to boot camp is a morale raiser as well (a mind-set unattainable by a non-participant) Nowhere is RESPECT achieved through ones actions moreso than in the military
2007-01-14 09:29:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋