2007-11-09 15:56:22 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Besides Mr. Bush's little guard background. I'm talking real combat experience
2007-11-09 16:22:46 · update #1
Not necessarily. FDR never served in the military and he was a pretty good wartime leader. As long as the President is ok with letting his generals and admirals plan the war effort, I'm ok with him/her as President.
11 Presidents haven't had military experience (12 if don't count the current President Bush's military experience), including Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. The last President with any serious wartime experience was the first President Bush, Nixon before him (both were in WWII). Amazingly we have yet to have a president that served any time in Vietnam or Korea.
2007-11-09 16:01:24 · answer #1 · answered by Downriver Dave 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How can someone be Commander In Chief if his knowledge of the military is limited to his history of watching Hollywood war movies?
I don't consider a military background essential, but being a TRUE AMERICAN with a strong grasp of American History, an understanding of human nature, and the desire to truly follow the Constitution ARE essential.
SOME Senators with military backgrounds behave like TRAITORS and THAT is far worse than no military experience.
2007-11-09 16:34:36 · answer #2 · answered by Philip H 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is a distinct advantage for a Commander-in-Chief to understand the inner working of the military but it is not a pre-requisite. The best choices are usually people who have held previous positions of leadership in the private sector, politics or the military.
That is why most Presidents were military officers or State Governors. Mayors of major cities have been elected but only a few Senators and pretty much no Congressmen.
.
2007-11-09 16:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
character could remember, however the way the technique is desperate up, it relatively is a acceptance poll. I applaud your decision to no longer vote for Hillary, yet I contend that in case you have been greater acquainted along with her checklist, you does no longer have self belief that she could be an "astounding president". in case you delve into her checklist, you will discover that she would not have any authentic stances on something. while she states a place, and it would not play nicely interior the media, she then says that she replaced into misunderstood, misquoted, or she would be able to lie outright, the certainty that the two Hillary and bill have controlled to stay out of penal complex, is definitely spectacular.. If I say anymore right here, Yahoo will delete this reaction. Suffice it to assert that character could remember, integrity could remember, honesty could remember, and actuality could remember, yet interior the political section, in basic terms acceptance concerns. the certainty, the information, the records and the authentic character of the guy working would be rewritten to maximise or cut back acceptance, in accordance with whom the media has chosen to assist. we've come a protracted way for the reason that "honest Abe" Lincoln, yet for the duration of the adventure, we glance to have veered horribly off track.
2016-10-15 23:38:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not necessary. We've had fine Presidents who have never served. Presidents have incredibly informed military advisors that they depend on to give them the pertinent information they need to make their decisions. Ever heard of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
2007-11-09 16:22:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes & no. It just all depends. Yes, because if we're in a situation like we are now then you want someone that is "capable" of calling the shots. No, because you wouldn't want them resulting to fighting as a way to solve the problems of the land. There should always be a better way to handle a situation.
2007-11-09 16:04:23 · answer #6 · answered by Vieja 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would be a benefit to someone to have served honorably. But it's not a requirement to gain public approval.
2007-11-09 16:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do, and very few of the candidates this time have any military background. How can they be the leader of the military with absolutely no experience?
2007-11-09 16:14:49 · answer #8 · answered by School Is Great 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
not really because it is supposed to be a civilian leading the military.
2007-11-09 16:05:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
like george bush?
or like dick cheney?
2007-11-09 16:01:20 · answer #10 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋