How come the presidents or leaders of their country dont fight alone side in wars anymore? they are the top general, the leader and father of their country but yet they dont fight in war. they hide in safety. George Washington was a real president, he actually fought alone side his solders.
2007-02-10 16:47:07 · 13 answers · asked by HOW I dO 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
but if the president wanted, could he goto war?
2007-02-10 16:55:27 · update #1
Well, because all of leaders in the world want to have a total picture of the war to decide the strategy. If they are on the battle field, anything is limited! The enemies will concentrate attack our main camp; victory is harder to archive!
2007-02-10 17:07:34 · answer #1 · answered by holyfire 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, no President in US History has ever led troops into combat, not even Washington.
What you're probably thinking about is the very short lived Whiskey Rebellion. Congress had passed a tariff on Whiskey, and the farmers further west weren't happy with it because they distilled their corn into Whiskey because it was easier to transport barrels of it than the raw corn.
President Washington did indeed lead troops to put down the insurrection. However, the rebels refused to fire on President Washington, and laid down their weapons instead. President Washington most likely realized this would be the case.
But, as I said, no President has ever personally led troops into actual battle, and most likely never will.
2007-02-10 18:24:49 · answer #2 · answered by reform_pa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard of a President fighting in a war.
Many men who did fight in wars went on to become President. Bush Sen, Eisenhower, Kennedy etc
2007-02-11 08:38:51 · answer #3 · answered by Murray H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer even think of i prefer to appreciate the style you got here to the top of attributing the chaos and insanity occurring in Iraq and surrounding international places good now to Ronald Reagan. All due admire to Ronald Reagan, yet even he's not attaining out from the grave to make undesirable judgements approximately what to do interior the middle East. that is all squarely in George Bush's courtroom. the middle East has constantly been a hotbed, that may no longer something new. however the warmth of an constantly precarious political pink zone of the worldwide became thoroughly exacerbated no longer via George Bush's invasion of Iraq, yet via his entire incompetence in no longer ensuring he had a plan for the aftermath and an go out plan for what he had created. believe me, that's The Decider's mess, have self assurance it, he tells you the very comparable element each and each of the time - the only distinction is he refuses to call it a multitude. that is okay, maximum persons have have been provided that plenty discovered. EDIT: Bingo fyonn - it in basic terms took you 2 sentences to declare and it took a 2 paragraph rant for me to declare the comparable element. i will attempt to earnings from that. ;-)
2016-09-28 22:57:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President's don't fight in wars. You're thinking of people like Washington,Jackson, Or Grant. They were in wars before they were presidents.
2007-02-10 16:51:25 · answer #5 · answered by kberto 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because if we actually had our current president out in iraq DIRECTLY commanding our troops, we'd be in BIG trouble.... on top of that, back then, we gave more power to the president as far as the military went. now a days, the president just has the title of "commander in chief" and the occational power in times in need, but for the most part, he can't make a decision without the approval of congress. not like it was in the old days.
2007-02-10 16:52:53 · answer #6 · answered by LuvingMBLAQ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At some point, our society started thinking "the leader is so important, and so irreplaceable, and took so long to train, that we can't possibly risk him." Generals also rarely fight in wars, although at least they *have* in the past.
The days of the king leading his troops into battle seem to be long gone. I think it's a shame. We may keep the man, but we lose some of his honor.
2007-02-10 16:56:58 · answer #7 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the president is way to valuable and not needed on the field of battle and washington was a general a long time before he was president
2007-02-10 20:01:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
not restricting this to US presidents
I once heard a very true statement "old men start wars, young men fight them"
Our country would be better off if all elected national positions be filled by people who had served in the armed services.
2007-02-10 16:53:14 · answer #9 · answered by auhunter04 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Like the Civil War soldiers used to say.....
"It's a rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."
That summed it up very well, I think.
2007-02-10 16:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by C J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋