Bush was in what the National Guard or something like that... so he wouldn't get drafted... Do you think that it would be better to have a president who served his nation in the military actively than one who didn't... do you think it should be mandatory to carry out the main role as commander and cheif... i mean in the civilian world your boss can typically do your job, and possibly has done it before!
2007-02-22 14:46:39 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Hey stop attacking me. I didn't say we should change the constitution. I was just wondering if people thought you should have been a troop before obtaining the right to command them!
2007-02-22 15:05:46 · update #1
I know the national guard is military but he didn't serve active duty National Guard works like the reserves unless your unit is made active!!! like many units are today!
2007-02-22 15:29:40 · update #2
I know the national guard is military but he didn't serve active duty National Guard works like the reserves unless your unit is made active!!! like many units are today!
2007-02-22 15:29:41 · update #3
Idealistically, yes. Times of war remind of this.
But in reality having that requirement is not what we are about as a nation. We are a country that says you can be whatever you want to be if you work hard at it... blah blah I know but that is the theory.
2007-02-22 16:23:16 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, some of the best presidents NEVER served in the military, and some of the worst did. Military service doesn't mean someone will be a Commander in Chief. I do believe that the Secretary of Defense, and maybe Secretary of Veteran Affairs, should be required to have a military background.
2007-02-22 15:06:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the military, you are supposed to be able to do the work that your men do.
I guess for Bush, it's a different story. Firstly, the National Guard is an active reserve programme. It means that he had to serve his unit and country while going on with his full time job. But whether he did this well, i don't know.
Secondly, the Commander-in-Chief, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the various service Chiefs of Staff all make decisions at the strategic level, so i think only a minimal amount of field experience is needed for them.
But i do think it should not be mandatory for them to have military experience. Instead, it should be mandatory for Americans to consider the credentials of their presidential candidates before voting for them.
2007-02-22 15:03:40 · answer #3 · answered by Hulabaloola 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. There is nothing in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. President to have served in the military before he can be commander of the military. Until the People vote to amend the Constitution in this regard, than the answer can only be no. But think also; would you truly want a former soldier in command of our country? Such is the thing dictatorships are made of. . .
2007-02-22 14:53:34 · answer #4 · answered by Rick H 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of what president Bush "was not" or "didn't do", he was ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Give up on chastising Bush and pick other Republicans to cast half truths and lies and inuendos out to the public about them. Forget Bush. When he leaves office, he will not be of any political harm to any political philosophy. Do you really think that GW was the only president we have had that did not serve active duty in the military? Bill Clinton, one of the democrats fair haired boys, was a true draft dodger. He was a commander in chief for 8 years.
2007-02-22 15:44:57 · answer #5 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, for the same principle that the Secretary of Defense and Secretaries of the individual branches of the armed services were created.... to ensure that the military did not have something of a "monopoly" (bad analogy, I know) on the Executive Branch....
I believe that while it shouldn't be necessary for the Commander - in - Chief to have served on Active Duty, I believe it should be required for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the armed services branches... This way, the military has a better chance of properly informing the President of decisions with military implecations...
2007-02-22 14:56:31 · answer #6 · answered by Hayden S. 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As there is not any Draft interior the united statesA. on the 2d and the united statesA. has no longer been at conflict on a daily basis of its existence, or that that is rather not a call for below the regulations of the united statesA. for a Presidential candidate, to have been an lively combatant then you quite can think of all you like, to apply your equipment might mean that each physique men and girls human beings of the united statesA. might could serve interior the army throughout a conflict. additionally with the aid of taking over your thought it would mean no female ought to ever grow to be a President via fact she would not have served in wrestle as its against the U.S. military rules. Its no longer useful or achievable. With regards G.W.B. he became available yet his particular unit, like many, interior the Air national look after became no longer deployed to Vietnam. Why provide up on the President why no longer flow the full hog and characteristic a military junta run the country? elementary: via fact then Democracy is going out the window. James S: the question became no longer published to furnish you room for a rant with regard to the characteristics of a Communist Dictator. it rather is a classic explanation why to no longer have military leaders working the country.
2016-11-25 01:13:13 · answer #7 · answered by niang 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Bad idea. It would threaten the ideal of civilian control of the military. And it is not the same job ... a president has to weigh a lot of things that fall outside the scope of military activity when deciding to use military force. Plus, we don't expect them to be economists when they work on economic issues or lawyers when they sign laws or linguists or diplomats when they meet with foreign leaders. Lastly, it would be profoundly undemocratic. We get to pick our leaders. The limits we have already, 35, natural born citizen, already limit our choices enough. A rule about military service passed by us would simply be telling citizens from now on we don't trust their choice.
2007-02-22 15:00:47 · answer #8 · answered by hadrian2 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Are you saying the Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR & Clinton should never have been president? I'm sure there have been other US presidents who have never been in the service. The Constitution lists no such requirement, however you can use whatever reasons you want in the voting booth.
BTW, I don't know where you work or what you do, but that is NOT the norm in the civilian world at all.
2007-02-22 14:52:38 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
first you should apologize to the national guard They are a branch of the military and deserve respect. second how old are you , have you ever had a job most bosses can not do there employees jobs and it is getting worse with all young collage kids trying to be bosses and not knowing what they are doing
2007-02-22 15:23:35 · answer #10 · answered by Pat B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I supoose if you wanted to keep having wars all the time,beeing commander in chief some military experience would be helpful after all that brainwashing stays forever. However you can read most of that in a book.therefore perhaps military experince is not necessary .
2007-02-22 14:54:17 · answer #11 · answered by robert s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋