If the President of the US is Commander-in-Chief...?

Question

ok so "Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the president as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces"

so shouldn't there be a requirement that anyone running for president of the us must have served in the armed forces?

is anyone in the armed forces bothered by the fact that they have to take orders from someone who has no clue what they do?

wow many of you read way too much into the question...
is there anyone in the military, who is intelligient enough to get the question, willing to answer it?

Answer 1

The point of the provision is to have the military answerable first and foremost to the civilian government, and thus prevent (or reduce) the possibility of a military coup.

It was never contemplated that every President would always be giving direct strategic orders, let alone tactical orders. The President was and is supposed to delegate the "how" to the commanders in the field, and just decide the "what" and "when".

Answer 2

Well our current President did serve in the Armed Forces in the Texas Air National Guard ( and yes that Counts!)
Clinton -Draft Dodging Wimp
Bush 41- WW2 Fighter Pilot
Reagan- Army
Carter-Navy
Ford- Navy
Nixon-Navy
Johnson- Army
Kennedy-Navy
Eisenhower- Pretty Obvious- 5 Star General
Truman- Pretty Sure he served
Roosevelt- could not for obvious reasons but may have served prior to getting Polio

The list goes on and on, as for those running
Clinton- Wife of Draft Dodger
McCain- POW Vietnam war Hero
Obama- None

And by the way the founding fathers intended for the "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces" to be a civilian so as to avoid a Military Dictatorship. Go back to school and study some history

Answer 3

Technically ol Dubya has served in the military, just not in any combat scenario, not for standard enlistment, and there have been many questions as to the quality of his service. Yes there are many many people available to give recommendations who've served in our military far longer and have first hand experience at the REAL cost of war.
I think any president who hasn't spent a lot of time in the military and has any good sense whatsoever, would enlist the aid of those who make up his Cabinet and his Secretaries and other esteemed advisors, and could help him make the right choices for our Armed Forces.
Unfortunately, when a president (or the people pulling his puppet strings) has a personal agenda, they will twist and manipulate the presented data to suit their ends. And even when it comes to light that they were incorrect or falsified the data presented by those in the field and those in the know, you'd better believe the buck will be passed down to someone else. (Think Libby, poor guy).

The trouble for our men and women in uniform, is that in swearing to serve our country, they have -almost- effectively sworn not to question their leaders and will show solidarity with the Commander in Chief, because that is part of their job. All they can do is try to make the best of a bad situation.

It's up to us back home to do the "questioning", it's up to us not to make light of the sacrifices that those men and women are making. To demand that their lives mean more than to fight grudge matches, or die in a cause not backed by their countrymen.
Maybe if we as a people had done more questioning of this current circumstance, our people serving in the military would be home by now.

Answer 4

resembling no man or woman can make a missile out of a jetliner? because he calls the photographs. What could you call the guy who receives to push the button or deliver troops into conflict (ignore about congress for a second)? I wanna hee a clean call, it truly is truly stuffy. next, who could you want to be in fee of each and each of the protection stress? Congress could take too lengthy to do something. someone appointed by technique of congress could have truly some partison dependence, etc. Why no longer someone...elected by technique of the individuals? being commander in chief is area of being president. (they actually have a conflict Room, a cupboard, a load of generals and a Pentagonal construction finished of techies to help the President. Its no longer a acceptance you get, its activity you are able to do and be responible for. Thats why its significant to %. someone who could have journey, who could manage to wield the flexibility of the U. S. militia. those who do not evaluate the CIC area of the presidential candidate's activity description may be making a huge mistake.Say if someone everyday became elected because of their acceptance and do make some reliable adjustments, yet even as a disaster hits, or something that became easily no longer accessible occurs? you want someone who can deal with the forces round then. A president could be properly rounded to fulfill each and each of the responsibilities of the Presidency. and they have cabinets that help him/her out with the environmental and fiscal issues. The president is termed the manager govt for all the different roles of the presidency. Why shouldn't he be CIC? i tried to be objective. Sorry if it became type of pointed. Oh! and maximum of what you stated about "no man or woman capturing a missile or invade" is genuine. yet its all a activity stated as MAD. you've missiles no longer so that you'll blow stuff up or so someone can attack the U. S. (thats an particularly, truly stupid theory). Its the possibility of it. its a device of leverage. we are saying we desire sanctions placed on international locations that are construction nukes, yet we gained't attack them in the journey that they have the guns because they are going to shoot them. We use are protection stress as a huge stick, and they (the ambiguous "they") use them as insurance. particularly, if a antagonistic u . s . is incaded by technique of th US, what could they likely lose by technique of capturing off a farewell bomb at us? they are toast besides.

Answer 5

I disagree. Just because you served in the Military it does not automatically qualify you to be president. I think the president should have a working respect for the military and understand the military, but they don't need prior service. I do however think that any president or ex first wench that thinks uniforms do not belong in the white house, should not be put in charge of the military.

Answer 6

Hey Genius, you just answered your own question.

Article Two says the president is Commander-in-Chief, it doesn't say that he has to have served in the military.

Answer 7

No, there should NOT be such a requirement -- it's for the voters to decide whether a given person is qualified.

They left it wide open for a reason.

(In your original question, you didn't restrict answers to those in the armed forces.)

Answer 8

Not necessary having served.He had a sec'y
of defense, and secretaries of the Army, etc etc, ,whose job is to advise.

As for taking orders from someone who doesn't have a clue, this happens every day, both in the military and out.

Eisenhower was a general, JFK and PT109 is a legend, Bill Clinton did not serve,
Jimmie Carter-no comment.-the more I think about it--- I'll stop here.

Answer 9

Is that question asked against Hillary Clinton or most women running for presidency? If yes, then have the guts and say so!

Answer 10

The system we have seems to have worked reasonably well for us. Lincoln, Wilson & FDR lacked military experience & led us in wartime.