2007-07-20 10:20:53 · 21 answers · asked by ThatOneDude 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm referring to any president and future presidents, not any one in particular.
2007-07-20 10:23:30 · update #1
No. America's greatest President, FDR, never served in thee military. But Ike was, at one time, one of America's highest ranking Military Officers. US Grant was the great hero of the Civil War, but was a terrible President. Jimmy Carter was a Navy Officer, and a Navy Academy graduate,but he was the weakest President of the 20th century. Harry Truman was a National Guard Captian,funny how the demorats seem to forget that, but he was a pretty fair President. Thomas Jefferson was never in the military... he was one of the richest men in America, a leading Freemason,and a professional college student, but he was a great President. Lincon did serve briefly in the 'militia',whatever that was, and he was perhaps one of the five greatest Presidents. Clinton was, of course, a professional draft doger and a lousy President.So it is pretty much a tossup as far a I'm concerned.
2007-07-20 10:38:39 · answer #1 · answered by joad58 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, if it was legitimate, as there is no draft!
Taking deferments because you didn't want to serve and deserted the National guard I have a problem with.
I don't see how anybody in the military doesn't puke every time they see Bush, or Cheney, or any other person in Bush's cabinet!!
Ironic, all male members of the Royal family MUST serve!
I think all Commander in Chiefs should have at least serve! If you can't serve your country except when you are getting rich, you aren't serving your country! Hard to make decisions for that which you know nothing about. And Commanders in Chief DOES NOT hand the military over to the military!
2007-07-20 17:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Only if he starts a war against the advice of his Generals, puts a beancounter in charge of the war, neglects the troops and pretends that all of this makes him a hero.
Bill Clinton didn't serve. But he respected the military and except for sending troops to Africa, which is always a mistake, used and supported the military pretty well.
Lyndon Johnson did serve, won a silver star and committed the greatest military blunder in American History. The Vietnam War, and the memory of it, hamstring US policy to this day.
2007-07-20 17:31:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No - but I have a problem with a president who depletes our military and ignores threats to national security ..as in the last administration .
2007-07-20 17:32:05 · answer #4 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, no problem at all. That's why they have military advisors, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress entities like the Armed Services Committee. It is not a necessary requirement and has never been one.
2007-07-20 17:28:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe we need a president who will actually pay attention to his/her generals instead of just being bulls in the china shop (no pun intended). Who cares about military experience. Maybe Bush's military experience is just getting in his way. God knows Cheney's isn't.
2007-07-20 17:27:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, being commander-in-chief is just one responsibility of the president. I'd prefer to have a smart president who's never served in the military than a stupid one who has, for example.
2007-07-20 17:25:01 · answer #7 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Not inherently. Prior service does not guarantee good decisions about the military, or bad ones for that matter. Not an automatic DQ.
2007-07-20 17:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
None. Only when they think they're the "War President" should military experience count. Based on GWB's military experience, we should show up at the MOB station and run home after two weeks.
2007-07-20 17:25:49 · answer #9 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Military service is not for everyone but respect for military is required.
2007-07-20 17:26:00 · answer #10 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋