Are Presidents who are veterans less like to use the military to solve our problems?

Question

It seems like the presidents and candidates that have never served in a combat role tend to be more hawkish.

Answer 1

It seems to me a good argument could be made for that. Eisenhower used restraint as did Kennedy. I have never fought in battle but my father fought in Vietnam and it seems to me once you've experienced it you have to come out of that knowing that war is not really a good resolution to problems.

Answer 2

I have often wondered this exact thing about Senator McCain being a Vietnam era POW. I have always thought they would be less inclined to get us into a war. However, Senator McCain to me is showing a huge flaw. He is more than willing to keep feeding this fiasco with troops until the end and that can only mean winning or losing. At this point what are the chances of Iraq winning and becoming a democracy? So to me he doesn't deserve to be elected to the Presidency.

Answer 3

I believe that a man who has served and seen the awful results of combat are fare less likely to use the military and will try every possible means to solve a problem with out death but, will also be firm and intelligent and brave when it counts in defending our country and way of life as the president of our country.

Answer 4

I've read comments from Eisenhower and also Patton and McArthur that after being in war, after seeing the torment and destruction of war that ALL options should be used before war is ever used. These are men that saw war firsthand and none were hawkish.

Answer 5

Most combat vets are not big flag waivers...they know how it feels to actually be in harms way and its not comfortable to talk about. Also from their experiences, they will be less likely to throw people in that position without a good reason. War for a real and just reason will unify people not split them.

Answer 6

Washington put down Shays' Rebellion. Jackson threatened to send the Army and Navy to put down South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, and they blinked. Taylor threatened to use the Army to enforce the Compromise of 1850 (but died before he had to). Grant sent federal troops to put down the Ku Klux Klan. McKinley (a Major in the Civil War) launched the Spanish-American War. Truman (an artillery Captain in World War I) defended South Korea. Eisenhower sent federal troops to allow the integration of Little Rock Central High School and sent the first U.S. troops to Vietnam. Kennedy (a PT boat commander in World War II) used force to get the Soviets to back down in Cuba. Johnson (a Navy vet of WWII) took us into Vietnam full-scale, and Nixon (ditto) escalated it before wrapping it up. Bush Sr. (again, ditto) sent U.S. troops to Panama, Kuwait and Somalia.

On the other hand, Jefferson launched the war with the Barbary Pirates, Madison the War of 1812, Polk the Mexican War, Lincoln (briefly in the Illinois National Guard) the defense of the Union, Wilson finally woke up to reality and got us into World War I, FDR (a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, but that's it) saved the world in World War II. And Clinton quickly won three wars without losing a man. (Haiti without even firing a shot, Bosnia and Kosovo -- the last with Republicans cutting off the funding, and who questioned their patriotism?)

Or does that only bring up more questions?

Answer 7

Not necessarily.

But they would probably be much more likely to actually fully equip them, and would only use them as a last resort.

And even then, only after they had made sure that any invasion or subsequent occupation had well defined goals, and an exit strategy.

The current administration is a perfect example of how NOT to do it.

They will pay. I gaurantee it.

Answer 8

Maybe, maybe not. I believe that Kerry would have had a greater understanding of war given that he fought in one. the only military experiences Bush has to reference took place in Alabama. Don't forget Hitler was a soldier during WWI and sustained terrible injuries to his lungs and eyes during the war and look how anti-war he was. So it can it can make a leader of desensitized or it can make him (or her) realize the terrible price all soldiers pay.

Answer 9

Not really. The situation dictates the use of force more than the man. Iraq aside, you have to admit that 911 forces the hand of the president into action in Afghanistan.

Answer 10

Coincidental, I believe no matter what Party, veteran or not, when a decision to go to war is necessary, America 1st. !! May God continue to Bless America !!