When I say served I mean a complete tour of service 4-6 years or more. To really understand what the military is about and to understand how they operate.
2007-03-27 13:47:15 · 18 answers · asked by rampdogg2000 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don’t think that military experience was necessary. Some of our best war-time Commanders in Chief had little or no military experience but they had good sense, were knowledgeable and intelligent, and were open to asking for and receiving military advice. Bush has failed because he had none of those qualities.
2007-04-04 05:08:02 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!!! I think that all presidents should have served tours of duty at least once. Right in the middle of it too, not in some office somewhere. I think that the best President would be someone who has served a tour and seen action, been an enlisted man and worked his way up through ranks. Someone who knows what its like to be directly under fire. Someone who has served along side others and formed a bond and feels it every single time a soldiers life is lost. The best President would do what is best for his men. Provide only the best protection in times of war and never settle for anything less. He would have the combat knowledge to know how to handle ever situation. However I do think that any former president would have handled this war differently.
2007-04-04 06:16:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In principal, even a reserve air force officer should have some idea about mission. Take that dog breath John Murtha as an example. Allegedly, as a Marine he was considered a hero, yet I personally believe he is a train wreck. I would cringe over the possibility that he could or would be put in control of any part of the armed services.
To understand mission, look at the characters of WWII. People such as Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Patton, Montgomery, Halsey, and Nimitz. They all had a common goal; to destroy the enemy, and settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender ! These people understood the need for war. They understood that if you're going to unleash this fury, you can't stop until you have completed your mission, and that's what they did.
If GWB had a mission, he would have completed it. He went so far as to unleash the fury of our armed forces. but he forgot to tell his commanders on the ground what their objective was, so they still don't seem to have a mission of destroying an enemy. If you don't have a mission to destroy your enemy, you have no business being there.
I guess, only a military mind can understand this, because not one politician in the US,since WWII has succeeded in winning a war, because he failed to state his mission or his objective. Military minds need to know, and they ain't being told !
2007-03-27 21:24:24 · answer #3 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A President who served in the Armed Forces does have a better understanding of military affairs. Both the Bush presidents served full terms in the military.
Clinton avoided military service.
2007-03-27 21:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by Johnnie 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Generally, no, but with this idiot of a president we have now, I wouldn't have hurt at all.
I think some military experience, true experience, not that BS of a tour Bush had in Texas, would have forced his mind towards a more specific goal - like CAPTURE BinLaden - which was fine as far as that went. But the whole purpose has been turned towards, the entire idea has been corrupted, politicized into making a feeling, "fear", the enemy. Incredible that our armed forces are being used virtually as his personal army for very, very narrow political aims.
What a pitable laugh... And Billions, BILLIONS lost in his fight against fear.
2007-04-04 05:42:54 · answer #5 · answered by plenum222 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think not only could a military man have handled it better (no I don't consider a few years of stateside National Guard training as being a qualified military leader with the experience needed to help in this current situation) but a person trained in the international political system could have handled it better.
Recent examples of militarymen handling dynamic international political crises include JFK, Eisenhower, & Truman. Neither Clinton, Carter or Bush Jr. had the military or political experience to help and all 3 failed badly in the international arena. Of course you have LBJ and Nixon who had vast political experience and couldnt fix Vietnam. Meanwhile Bush Sr. couldnt leave Noriega alone. He wasnt; content playing with our policy, he was meddling with another country's as well.
Personally, I do think Powell would be fantastic with his Ike -like experience as well as Gore & McCain who have decade of international experience. However, I think Clinton, Obama, and Guiliani lack the international political experience to face this kind of situation.
2007-03-27 21:14:12 · answer #6 · answered by IamCount 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Our President did serve a complete tour in the military. He was a qualified fighter pilot. That does take quite a bit of commitment and training. Since this was quite a bit more than our previous draft dodging coward in chief had, I'm glad Bush is on the job.
2007-03-27 20:54:35 · answer #7 · answered by MSG 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Any previous president could have handled the present events better than Bush.
2007-03-31 12:49:08 · answer #8 · answered by radar 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think it would help if that were the case. If he had the perspective of having really been in the military, he would understand better what he puts the troops and their families through.
2007-03-27 21:17:05 · answer #9 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES! In fact, I think it should be a requirement. At least 4 years of military service and honorable discharge. No more legacy families. This means no more Bush's, no more Clintons. No more Yale and Harvard grads.
2007-03-27 20:54:29 · answer #10 · answered by dasuberding 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋