Do you think politicians that have served in the military are less likely to take military action first?

Question

Do you think political leaders that are also veterans would be more likely to pursue other options prior to sending in troops?

Answer 1

No, but they may be more cautious on using military action and reserve it only for extreme situations were it is nessicary.(responding to 9/11 in afghanistan would be one of them but not Iraq) Some of our best presidents were military vetrans, such as Kennedy, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, Grant, and many more.

Answer 2

I heard something about that on the news. I suppose if they actually served in a war they would be more likely to seek other options. They know that war is not the glorified solution unlike others who have never participated in military action or a ground war.

Answer 3

I doubt there is any correlation between a politician's military service (or lack thereof) and their likelihood to use force as the primary means of curbing global strife. The politics and overall worldview of a politician factor more into whether or not one takes a militarist approach of solving problems. There have been Republican veterans in Congress who have been gung-ho from the beginning over Bush's policy of military pre-emption.

Answer 4

Yes... most would. They would be thinking of the men that they served with. It is hard not to. The military experience, especially a combat experience, would make it hard to not personalize your decisions.

Answer 5

Of course they would. They were in the service and would have way better understanding on what it is like to go to war. Unlike these wanna be's that serve in the Guards.

Answer 6

That would more that likely be true. They have served and have had the experience that others haven't.

Answer 7

Slick Willie deployed the US military a grand total of 44 times with nothing at all to show for it.

Answer 8

YES YES YES!!!!