2007-01-24 14:47:28 · 12 answers · asked by Martha B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
That would have been a much better question 6 years ago.
2007-01-24 14:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by locusfire 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would exclude Hillary, and Obama, (and Lincoln and Truman, and Clinton, Reagan, Adams, Madison, Franklin D Roosevelt... The list is long and distinguished).
If we require they have military service, shouldn't we also require them to have served in combat so they could see firsthand the horror of war? Shouldn't they then be required to have been enlisted or no higher than an NCO so they could experience the reality of the stench of death rather than read about it in a report? I think the authors of the government were smarter than we are.
Military service doesn't give the president any particular advantages. President Carter was in the Navy (graduated from the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and served on submarines as an officer), but destroyed any chance of rescuing the American hostages from Iran in the botched attempt to rescue them. A plan he personally approved. Reagan didn't have any military experience, yet when he was elected the Iranians couldn't get the hostages out of Iran fast enough.
President Bush 41 was a combat pilot in WWII and authorized the successful invasion and containment of Iraq. President Bush 43 was a reserve fighter pilot and has screwed up the second invasion of Iraq beyond belief.
No. Bad idea.
2007-01-24 17:48:26 · answer #2 · answered by Sarge1572 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. While the President is indeed the Commander-in-Chief, they also have the ability to call on "experts" and the joint chiefs committee to help and advise them in their decision making process. Also, military experience is not as common today as it was with our young people 20 -40 years ago. Military experience would be beneficial, but no more so than business experience, or teaching experience would be for their respective roles that government plays. What is more important is having a leader whom realizes that they cannot be everything, and that they need to depend on trusted advisors to help them make the proper decisions that are best for the country, and not necessarily what the popular action to do at the time is.
2007-01-24 15:01:05 · answer #3 · answered by skiguy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is my belief that all top government officials should have served honorably in the armed service but constitutionally that wouldn't really work. There are some people out there that aren't able to serve but understand the need for a strong military and can do the job. There are also former service members that should not be in politics (Kerry) oops did I type that.
Politicians are like diapers they should be changed often and for the same reason. (Robin Williams)
2007-01-24 15:14:05 · answer #4 · answered by Gremlin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
FDR, generally considered to be the greatest wartime President of the modern era, had no military experience.
Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, two of the most hated Presidents of the modern era (Nixon for liberals, Carter for conservatives), were Lt. Commanders in the U.S. Navy.
Military service doesn't seem to have a lot to do with it.
2007-01-24 15:59:31 · answer #5 · answered by Richardson '08 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actual, we choose greater politicians who've served interior the militia. it particularly is who particularly makes the thoughts. the militia isn't virtually conflict, yet approximately being authentic to your self and being area of a few thing greater advantageous than your self. With that comes a feeling of duty and the capacity to make sound judgements for all and attain initiatives as a collection. Too lots of our flesh pressers are too busy making media sound bites and pointing hands at one yet another to end something. they are self serving because of the fact they have on no account belonged to something different than a rustic club. If greater of them had served interior the militia (like it became back interior the day), the country maybe does no longer be in this type of mess. The president might desire to be the CINC, yet he can purely do lots in that function. Congress comes to a decision on how a techniques he can pass and how lots he can spend. So despite a President has performed or no longer performed interior the previous, you ought to at what Congress allowed or no longer allowed him to do.
2016-11-01 05:25:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. He just needs competent military advisers and the intellect to understand what they are telling him.
2007-01-24 15:29:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but he should have experience that's applicable to governing a nation.
2007-01-24 14:54:37 · answer #8 · answered by Ultima vyse 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most do have it...the current president is a veteran
2007-01-24 14:59:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so but apparently our founding fathers didn't agree with it.
2007-01-24 15:11:05 · answer #10 · answered by Karen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋