A military leader with No military experience or one with actual ground time (not 60's and 70's playing at the National Guard)....So as I don't 'offend' any conservatives, I'll use their own ......Eisenhower who was a five star general on the battlefield in WWII or Reagan who sold war bonds but didn't even bother to enlist. Eisenhower's son was in the military, none of Reagan's were. So who would you follow? Someone who actually saw battle and had their children in rank and file besides yours or someone who was not in the military nor were any of their near-and-dears....... who do you feel would make the better leader.
2007-08-24 04:29:06 · 13 answers · asked by momatad 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
did not specify President, just 'leader' as in 'leader into battle'.....and I intentionally left out Bush and Clinton because of all the vitriole both cause in discussion.....that's why I chose Eisenhower and Reagan. If you are active in the military who would you follow when told 'Follow Me, Boys'?
2007-08-24 04:42:02 · update #1
I will go into combat for a leader who has the tenacity to put aside politics and personal gain. He must think of his troops and countries well being above everything else. It doesn't matter his own military experience, but where is heart truly lies. Remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
2007-08-24 05:01:52 · answer #1 · answered by schneider2294@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does ground time have to do with overall military experience. Just because I served active duty in the Military, it is a far cry from me knowing Military strategic and tactical operations. Can the 5 star general solve domestic issues? Probably not, who knows. What I look at is the proven political support of the military because that is only one small issue facing any nation.
2007-08-24 11:56:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
FDR was not in the military and we won WWII. Lincoln was briefly in the malitia and we won the Civil War. By the way FDR and Lincoln, our two greatest presidents did have sons in the military.
I wouldn't want a general with no experience running a war but the Commander-in-Chief really doesn't need that kind of experience as he/she won't likely lead anyone in battle. That is what we have the military brass for.
2007-08-24 11:39:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Leadership does not require hands on experience. Many of the world's top executives have never actually run the processes on the ground floor of their industry.
The keys to leadership are vision, integrity, strength, and the ability to make sound decisions based on the input of your subordinates managing the day to day operations.
(We will see how the last one plays out after Gen. Patraeus conducts his briefing in Sept.)
Clearly stated objectives followed up with a dynamic course of action to achieve the goals regardless of the popularity of your decision defines your ability to lead.
Leadership at it's core -The ability to inspire others to follow although the task at hand maybe difficult and/or dangerous.
2007-08-24 11:59:11 · answer #4 · answered by Chief Mac 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it depends. Many different Native American tribes had war chiefs and peace chiefs. During certain periods, certain leaders who were skilled in tact, planning, and social good would be in control. They were less aggressive and help strong roles in their tribes.
Then, if war broke out, the warrior chiefs who'd seen combat would take over for the duration of conflict.
It depends on what situation is occuring. Clinton was never in the military, and he ignored bombings of American targets for 8 years. Shows how good a leader he was.
2007-08-24 11:34:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Leader of what?
Troops? Eisenhower.
California? Reagan.
The president of the US? Both had their strong points, both had their weaknesses.
What exactly are you getting at?
Edit to add:
If you're just looking for a good military leader with seemingly no time-period constraints and dubious choices, I'll choose:
General William Tecumseh Sherman
One of the finest leaders of soldiers to ever walk the earth.
2007-08-24 11:39:49 · answer #6 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oliver North
2007-08-24 11:36:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I always followed my unit leadership. I never gave too much of a damn who was sitting in the big chair in Washington. If we had a congress that was doing anything other than selling their souls for reelection then one man would not be running the country. In 2008 vote them all out - Republican, Democrat no difference. Vote for a third party or anyone who is not and has not been in power. Take the government back.
2007-08-24 11:42:03 · answer #8 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Given that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, I think that military service should be a mandatory part of the qualifications for the job.
2007-08-24 11:37:34 · answer #9 · answered by togetheradecade 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are restricting choice to an unlikely level as a way to get people saying what you want to hear!
I would follow Colin Powell, for example, and he cannot figure on your list.
Please, be honest and don't yield to age-old tricks favored by European let-wing activists.
2007-08-24 11:40:07 · answer #10 · answered by Space Bluesman 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋