Do you think Military experience makes a better presidential candidate?

Question

I dont think a presidential candidate need to have military experience to be considered a good candidate. Isnt that what they have military adv isors for?

Answer 1

The president wears many hats and the more hats they can wear, the better. Not only is the president suppose to be the top military leader, but the top cop, the top doctor, the top teacher, the top financial leader, the top taxperson, the top environmentalist ect.

Answer 2

Hello. Yes, I do believe military experience makes for a much better presidential candidate. Why? Because in the military each is so squarely instructed to react than to respond, so by facing things by reacting they can do so like second nature without having to stop and think or be subject to emotions and the like. There are things that are drilled into them so it becomes second nature, and it is a strength they can call upon whenever the need arises. A commander in chief who is cognizant of the rigors of military life can identify and understand the pressures and problems they face. I would be far more willing to vote for a candidate who's been so trained and educated than one who is not. That's why I think a man would make a better president than a woman, though she could be just as gutsy as he. How would the international community deal with a country with a woman president? Clinton being taken seriously on various subjects with the likes of Putin? I don't think that'll work.

Answer 3

Yes Military experience CAN make a a better Presidential candidate but it's not a guarantee. We have has some great Presidents who didn't serve and some questionable ones who did serve. If I had to choose between to equally qualified candidates who's only major difference was that one served honorably and one didn't I would most like go with the man or woman with military service.

Answer 4

It should be mandatory when dealing with the military. Otherwise you have no understanding of how the military works. Believe me, military experience is necessary to truly understand this. This is pounded home by some of the posts I've seen from people who clearly have no idea what military life is like. (ie. anything said by anybody who thinks soldiers are robots who follow orders without question.)

The prospective commander in chief should have a working knowledge of military things. Advisors can only go so far. If the President gets some stupid idea about the military in his head he picked up in college, his advisors can only respectfully tell him it is BS. If he wants to go through with it, they have to say, "yes sir" and move on (ie. the Clinton years). On the other hand, military experience doesn't make you a better candidate. Just look at John McCain. He's a Vietnam veteran and a total loon at the same time.

Answer 5

Very much so! Would you want the President of the United States not having Military experience in the crisis were in today? Yes, we do have advisors but, were they Military trained? I agree, with Clifford. Having a Military background is a solid characteristic responsibility for an individual who is running in politics. It gives them the leaverage in knowing and understanding where the Advisor is coming from with Military tactics.

Answer 6

i think of as a rustic we count lots too heavily on militia ideas to each issue. We spend extra on weapons and militia than the entire relax of the worldwide blended, yet the two events look to compete with plans for spending will improve. i might say militia journey is often beside the point, particularly recently. The exception may well be if the guy replaced right into a commonplace and for this reason a reliable organizer, a reliable supervisor. Like George Washington or according to risk Dwight Eisenhower. i'm very respectful of McCain's time in detention center, and nevertheless I do agree it makes him a hero, in a manner, i don't agree that it qualifies him to be president of the U. S.. yet being a 'conflict hero' is all McCain has to bypass on, so in his marketing campaign he builds up the possibility of terrorism and says that only he can guard us. i think of this is only incorrect. Obama has gotten all varieties of flak from the Republicans for suggesting that international kin could be tried first, that militia action could be a final hotel. i don't understand what's so incorrect approximately that!

Answer 7

I think it makes a better candidate. This person would know how terrible a war really is, they would probably be less likely to go to war if it is not necessary. Then, if war was absolutely necessary, this candidate would have personal experience and background to be a better leader.

Answer 8

Its not the military experience that will make one a better president. I think its the dedication to serve the country, intelligence, integrity and compassion.

Answer 9

I think it depends on what is happening globally, and if its peacetime or wartime. A President with experience would have a better understanding of what goes on day to day with our soldiers, but yes, advisors can also fill in the void for the President who doesn't have experience. Historically, our veteran Presidents haven't been any better or worse than the others, i.e. Eisenhower & Grant. Grant was actually not that great as a President. Military experience can be helpful in some situations, but i don't think its paramount.

Answer 10

well, it is good to have in at your resume. Having a military background is very good advantage for the candidate. At lease you know what your military advisor saying to you.