Do you think it makes any sense that we in the U.S. elect our Presidents with the title and responsibility of "Commander-In-Chief" of the United States Armed Forces yet don't require them to have ever served in said military? Seems a bit presumptive, eh?
by 
Capt. Jack Sparrow GALCIY
ANSWERS: 6
-
Good question, hope my AB friends are on track to answer as well...makes no sense to me, anyone entrusted with the responsibility of ordering troops into battle should be familiar at the most basic level of what that order means...it is not necessary to be a lawyer to run the country, but it is necessary that the person chosen to serve as leader be fully cognizant of the sacrifices he is asking his populace to make for the good of the country as a whole, and nobody who has not served in our military at the most basic levels should be entrusted with the responsibility for decisions involving the lives of youth.
-
Actually no. As a military vet, I think it's a great idea. Yes I do think it's a foolish thing to have someone who who couldn't be bothered to serve, order others into battle. But since there isn't a requirement for such, it could turn out to be a good thing. Who'd you want to be in C in C? Someone who looks for a good reason to go to war, or an armchair general?
-
That's why McCain shouldve been elected...
-
I always have more respect for a Pres who has served, but it is not a hard rule with me, especially now, when many are not of the time when service was mandatory for most of us. If it were a rule, we would be descriminating against many who have great leadership abilities. However, if I were a young and ambitious man today, and wanted to have a career in politics...I think I would include military service in my experience. I probably would anyway, not just because it might "look good on a resume", but because I come from a family who all served and I feel serving your country is a good thing to do. I did, though I could have avoided it.
-
The president does not micromanage the war - that's where the army generals and other officers come in. Besides, just because someone has served under some capacity doesn't make them capable of leading the country OR making good decisions in warfare - take Bush for instance.
-
1) Most Presidents have the wits to listen when their Generals say the job need more men or raise other objections. Just because one president did not, is no reason to change the constitution. 2) It is a fundamental rule of every national military that the military must NOT make its own rules or decide its own enemies. Ultimate command should be wested in civilian politicians, not in military personnel. regards JakobA
Moongrim RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC