BACK IN ROMAN TIMES U SOMETIMES HAD THE EMPEROR TAKE THE FIELD OF BATTLE WITH HIS TROOPS SHOULD WE HAVE OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF DO THE SAME
2007-10-19 16:24:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Isn't it bad enough already?
2007-10-19 16:29:37 · answer #1 · answered by raichasays 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Actually during old Roman times there were a number of government systems Imperator itself at one point was a military rank - that the soilders themselves declared.. this lead to problems during the decline of rome due to infighting and civil war when multiple emperor's were raised in the field.
But There are times when people can beneifit from first hand exposure.. that is if you must see something with your own eyes but even that can be fabricated.
Bush has on occasion traveled to Iraq as far as official reports indicate..I remember a report that he went thanksgiving of 2003 or something.
Anyway, The civil and military establishments while both public services are divided in ways.
Someone who managed baseball teams alone may not be as effective necisarily as a life long strategician.. I think having hte best man lead the mission is the best you can do.. part of being a leader is knowing who is best suited for any given task.
How close you are to your troops may not matter for some functions but chain of command is a multistaged process.
The Executive is just that though.. it is the will of the state.. who is the head and who is leading the nation may be two different things completely.
If you are the executive you are the state. If you are a soldier you are the will of the executive... you are sort of owned by the executive.. freewill aside.. but it is complex.. if the president is a good soilder better than his commanders.. or he is the best man to lead the mission for whatever reason.. YES.. but is this the case? if it were wouldn't he be there...
really though what type of question is this?
The president has more to do then kill people in another country.. he has all of his own nations policy to uphold. Which may not just be killing people half way around the world that don't do what he'd like. (he/she/it)
2007-10-19 23:36:43 · answer #2 · answered by intracircumcordei 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In our history that has not happened. We have had soldiers become president. And liberals should be very afraid when a president becomes a general and leads troops in the field.. Men like that have little use for an interfering congress.
2007-10-19 23:53:24 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a way all our Presidents do everyday. Several have been killed others have had attempts on their lives. Saddam tried to have Bush 1 killed in Kuwait. Have you seen the security that surrounds presidents. How many times has a president been into combat zones. It does happen.
2007-10-20 00:52:15 · answer #4 · answered by impstout2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because a person served in the military, it doesn't necessarily make them a good president. (US Grant is a perfect example of this.) That said, it might not be a bad idea these days since it's been a while since we've had anyone who has served.
Also, if you also read your history, that Emperor was pretty darn well protected.
2007-10-19 23:28:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Send both Father and Son and save Laura to look after double trouble
2007-10-19 23:56:19 · answer #6 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They could not get him to fulfill his National Guard commitment, never mind leading troops into battle,
2007-10-19 23:29:13 · answer #7 · answered by bgee2001ca 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I would love to have this commander and his Vice presiden go to the front.
2007-10-19 23:58:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He would do better than anti war Kerry or fat man Gore.
2007-10-19 23:49:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
G.W.s been to Iraq a few timesalready
2007-10-19 23:29:18 · answer #10 · answered by a person of interest 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
A most excellant idea!
2007-10-19 23:31:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋