Do you think that a person with no military experience is competent to lead our nation's military force?

Question

It seems like the great leaders of the past were military heroes before becoming President and today it's more important to be popular and be able to win over enough people. The whole election process has become a big money game rather than looking at the character of a person, their morality and their military capability. The heroes of yesterday like George Washington are gone and in their place laughingstock quality people with no military experience whatsoever - and they are competent to tell our military what to do? Bill Clinton for instance - his biggest military accomplishment was to make room for gay people to "come out" in the military. I'm not making a judgment call on that here - but just compare that to some of the battles that George Washington brought our country through and it seems that our candidates for President today are hardly concerned with what is really important and focusing on minor things that have little relevance to the task of the military.

I thought the job of the military was to protect our freedoms - not work out a political agenda, but it seems that's all the modern day Presidents know how to do! I'd like George Washington on the ballot - I'd rather have a dead President than most of the candidates out there.

Answer 1

The question, as you ask it, implies a "No." Naturally, someone who has no military experience is not competent to lead our nation's military forces.
However, the job of the President is not to lead our military forces. That is the job of generals. The President sets goals for the military to achieve, based on national and international needs of the country. Certain restrictions on methods may be required due to the nature of the goals--"Defeat Country X, but do -not- use nuclear devices; that would cause worse international headaches!"--but, by and large, the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan the operations.
As a result, the military gets its missions from the politicians. When the politicians, however, step in to actually run the war instead of allowing the military to do their jobs, we have conflicts like Vietnam and Korea.

So, the short answer is: No, a person with no military experience is not competent to lead our nation's military forces. But the President is not supposed to do so, and as a result, military experience is not required for the job.

Answer 2

There is no requirement in the job description for the President of the U.S.A. to have had military service, by implementing what you want, you could effectively deny the position to many men who are not required to serve as there is no Military Draft, and to many woman, or a person with a physical handicap!!

George Washington*, a great example, wealthy, connected,

So in your eyes such people as:

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, who had no military service did nothing for the USA?

Yet you make a judgment based upon George Washington's actions in a Colonial War of over 7 years

What you are looking for is a Military Dictator, so move to live in Chile or Cuba.

Answer 3

I served under seven commanders-in-chief. Five in a row were former Navy officers who served in World War Two. Not one could appreciate or understand the application of sea power. The sole exception may have been John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But, the idea for the Naval quarantine of Cuba during the Missile Crisis was suggested by Adlai Stevenson. Not Kennedy.
In the 20th Century Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the nation during two world wars. Neither man had ever served one day in uniform.
George Washington headed up the Continental Army before the Treaty of Paris brought Great Britain's recognition of America's independence. But, during his time as President, he was more savaged by his political detractors and the press than even the current holder of that office.

Answer 4

Absolutely.

The commander in chief sets the policy -- he has plenty of Generals working for him that know how to how that make that policy happen.

Consider some examples:

Lincoln, some trivial militia experience before leading the Union in the Civil War.

Mckinley was enlisted for most of the Civil War -- no strategic leadership training or experience at all. But he oversaw the Cuba and Philippine adventures in the Spanish-American War.

Woodrow Wilson had no military experience at all. He managed the military side of WWI nicely -- but his inability to deal with the big picture on the diplomatic level messed that up.

Franklin Roosevelt had no military experience at all. He managed the military side of WWII nicely -- but his inability to deal with the big picture on the diplomatic level left us with the Iron Curtain and the Cold War.

BTW, George Bush was a fighter pilot for six years. That is significant military experience. You should not let people who have no military clue tell you what is and isn't valid -- they usually get it wrong.

In all cases, the President needs competent Generals that can implement his policy. They do not need a President that is trying to dictate tactics (like Johnson did in Vietnam) -- that is a recipe for disaster.

Answer 5

Traditionally, Generals have not made great Presidents. George Washington not withstanding, Taylor, and Jackson were not great presidents though they were successful Generals. Grant was a poor President, and Eisenhower was elected President based on his military achievments, and then really spent eight years of doing nothing but golf. Truman was a good President, though he never made it to the rank of General, Kennedy has the aura of a great President, but that can be debated. Teddy Roosevelt was a Colonel and a very good President, but again in general, successful Military leaders do not make the best Presidents.

Answer 6

I think a president should have military experience to serve as president. It is the single most important part of the job of president. I believe one of the best candidates would be John McCaine (if he could only get his campaign together).

He (or she) should be a good military person though. Several military presidents were not good presidents. Both Nixon and Johnson are examples. Bush and Cheney also are questionable.
Our current President has several months of AWOL marks on his record and our current Vice President has been exempted from the draft 5 times. In other words, the VP did not do his duty. These black marks call into question their devotion to country.

Answer 7

I feel it should be a requirement for the office of President, but that being said just 'cuz you were in doesn't mean it made an impression...... oh to add to someone elses comment Clinton(male) DID NOT listen to advisers and his wife will be even worse than anything we've seen yet

Answer 8

well let's see some would argue that FDR was our greatest president. he led the nation through most of WWII and was not in the military. how is that possible? being in the military does not mean you will be a good president, nor is it a requirement to be president.

Answer 9

If the President listens to his top military advisors (like Clinton did) instead of ignoring them (like Bush does) - that is what is important. Neither of them has military experience but Clinton executed a brute-force regime change in Yugoslavia with a Republican congress fighting him the whole way.

Answer 10

As long as they understand that they are not a Soldier and if they take this nation in to a war they will let the Generals win there is no problem.