Do you Think There Will Ever Be a Time When The President Takes Charge of U.S. Soldiers in the Field?

Question

Do you believe there will ever be another circumstance where the President would take personal command of our soldiers in the battlefield? Or do you think that advanced training for soldiers, combined with advanced weapons and satellite technology will prevent this situation from ever happening?

To my knowledge, this has only happened twice. President Washington did this when he led his troops against the Whiskey Rebellion, and President Madison did it when Washington, D.C. came under fire in during the war of 1812.

Does anyone believe it will ever happen again?

Dude:

I would advise you to check out the following link, While Washington was never "leading the charge", he was in the battle during his second term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#Authority_as_Commander-in-Chief_on_the_battlefield

Answer 1

With the world as it is today, huge battles, like the ones fought in the early days of the US, are no longer abundant. In most cases a simple platoon of marines has enough firepower to overwhelm the most advanced and discplined armies of the revolutionary war. The most likely occurence is small battles fought by marauding smaller forces. A skirmish on the level of 20 guys versus another 20 guys. Most of these soldiers would have at least the basic training of the armed forces but they would only be a small fraction of the armies contending each other. It would be impossible for one man to physically direct all of those firefights in the field.

I don't think there will ever be a chance that a president will be forced to lead soldiers on a battlefield. Then considering our way of selecting presidents, our elections have almost never take into account honesty, military genius, economic inclination or any other viable trait. A politician is just that, a politician. It would be as disaiterous as a bagger from a grociery store trying to defuse a bomb instead of a trained individual.

I would only forsee such a stupid occurence of the president taking charge of a body of troops in the field if the nation itself were invaded and enemy troops were advancing on whatever hiding hole the joint chiefs stuck the president in. Then again I would guess the president would surrender at that...

Answer 2

No, that is not his job, and you wouldn't want your executive leader running the troops at his whim, that defeats the purpose of checks and balances. President gives broad orders and the military machine determines the best way to execute those orders.
Washington did not lead troops while president, he was not appointed to office until after the war was over. As for Madison, I don't know the facts. But many Presidents let soldiers or sailors in conflict. I believe Grant and Eisenhower were the two highest ranking (general) but both were out of the armed forces when they were elected

Answer 3

No because people think President means office and not leader.

I can hope that it would happen again. And one day it may. I would have a tremendous amount of respect, but unfortunately not since Ike has anyone been of the quality. And before him TR.

I really like England's Royal Family. They serve and they go to war.

Prince Andrew fighting in the Falkland's War.

Prince Harry on the verge of shipping out to Iraq.

I respect these guys.

In US as in most other places, politician = puppet.

Answer 4

Wow - what racially charged question! look Your Majesty, the Obama administration in 2009 outspent by using a ingredient of 10 the over the Bush administration's 2007 funds 365 days. it relatively is a certainty. Bush have been given hammered by using conservatives for failing to restrain spending greater and that's arguably between the vast motives the Republicans lost the congress in 2006. it relatively is in basic terms that at that factor, the TEA social gathering hadn't formed using fact the Republicans of that factor, disappointing as they have been, did no longer upward push to the point of recklessness we've experienced this final 365 days or so. another factor in the previous you tar Bush with the racist brush - you will possibly undergo in innovations that for the period of 2004 he released a extensive investment initiative to help HIV and AIDS bothered human beings in Africa. he's likewise working with former president Clinton to strengthen funds to help the individuals of Haiti. He did no longer could do the two of those issues. i'm a white guy, and that i used to love our contemporary president on a private point. It wasn't his poor regulations that lost my affection for him, it replaced into the dishonorable way he went approximately pursuing them. Does that make me a racist? I provide you my solemn promise that if he have been white, it does no longer exchange my opinion of him one tiny bit. it is not consistently (or maybe frequently) approximately race.

Answer 5

Those were different times..with different circumstances and communications. Generals now give the orders....but because politics has corrupted the military..their hands are tied to the strategy they want to employ.
If the military was able to work and deploy as they saw fit...wars could have been shorter...though more destructive...but the whole concept of war is to win.

Answer 6

Since it has become battlefield earth and he is directing the top operations; I suppose it is a matter of semantics. If alive, he has to approve the use of nuclear weapons doesn't he?

Answer 7

Bush in charge of soldiers in the field?!? OMG! LOL!!!!!

Answer 8

Only if we have a newly retired general who knows what he/she is doing. I'll bet you attack with your king in chess, don't you? ;-)

Answer 9

N O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!