Military Service makes a better politician.

[tigerbob]

...or so many threads seem to say / imply.

Unfortunately they never seem to get very far before they descend into a pretty hostile debate about who is the biggest draft dodging scumbag, with Bush and Clinton being the usual suspects, but there are plenty of others.

There was a thread started recently that seemed to imply that Prince Harry was considered to be a better monarch than...whoever...simply because he'd served 10 weeks in Afghanistan. I think that's probably bollocks, but other may agree with it.

I've also read numerous other threads that seem to follow the same line: Military service develops team spirit, leadership, the ability to think through challenging problems, strength of character, courage under fire, an appreciation of foreign affairs and the value of diplomacy, etc. etc.

Maybe this subject has been kicked to death already, but all I can find is Dems and Reps laying into each other about the record of particular individuals, rather than addressing the issue of whether a leader is 'improved' (draw your own conclusions about what that may mean) by having seen a few tours / been under fire.

If anyone's got views on this I'd love to hear them.

 

[Gurdari]

If you live in a democracy the best leader responds to the wishes of the people, his or her particular resume is less important. The more democratic you get, the more people are actually involved in legislation and policy decisions (instead of just picking someone to do it for them for a few years) the less the leader is important - inversely, the less democratic you get, the more important the leader's personality, vision and style matter.

Not sure if blindly following orders (which I believe is needed in some armed forces) would help you think creatively to solve problems and ultimately lead...

 

[jillian]

...or so many threads seem to say / imply.

Unfortunately they never seem to get very far before they descend into a pretty hostile debate about who is the biggest draft dodging scumbag, with Bush and Clinton being the usual suspects, but there are plenty of others.

There was a thread started recently that seemed to imply that Prince Harry was considered to be a better monarch than...whoever...simply because he'd served 10 weeks in Afghanistan. I think that's probably bollocks, but other may agree with it.

I've also read numerous other threads that seem to follow the same line: Military service develops team spirit, leadership, the ability to think through challenging problems, strength of character, courage under fire, an appreciation of foreign affairs and the value of diplomacy, etc. etc.

Maybe this subject has been kicked to death already, but all I can find is Dems and Reps laying into each other about the record of particular individuals, rather than addressing the issue of whether a leader is 'improved' (draw your own conclusions about what that may mean) by having seen a few tours / been under fire.

If anyone's got views on this I'd love to hear them.

The thinking is that if someone has had military service, they are more equipped to be Commander in Chief. I agree with you, I think that's probably incorrect. Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt (Franklin) served in the military and they were the two greatest presidents I can think of. I think Bill Clinton was the best president I've seen in my lifetime and I think had Richard Nixon not been a paranoid crook, he'd have probably been considered a great president. And I think of all of the above, he was the only one to serve if I'm not incorrect.

For the people who say you had to have served but love Ronnie Reagan, I'd remind them that making recruitment films isn't quite the type of service they're talking about.

So there ya go.

 

[midcan5]

Military leadership is a straw argument given the beating Kerry got, even McCain was badly beaten when he ran against Bush. Right now he is the last republican standing so whatever he did would be considered with favorable lighting. Of contemporary presidents I look at FDR as greatest and he didn't serve, in many ways he lead a privileged life. Lincoln, another great leader, did serve but the times were different and it was during conflicts with the native Americans. But each of these men had complex backgrounds and obvious intelligence. So the answer is, as with all these questions, it depends on the man or woman.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fdrbio.html

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The thinking is that if someone has had military service, they are more equipped to be Commander in Chief. I agree with you, I think that's probably incorrect. Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt (Franklin) served in the military and they were the two greatest presidents I can think of. I think Bill Clinton was the best president I've seen in my lifetime and I think had Richard Nixon not been a paranoid crook, he'd have probably been considered a great president. And I think of all of the above, he was the only one to serve if I'm not incorrect.

For the people who say you had to have served but love Ronnie Reagan, I'd remind them that making recruitment films isn't quite the type of service they're talking about.

So there ya go.

You seem to imply that Nixon wasn't in the service. He served in the Pacific as a Naval Officer.

 

[jillian]

You seem to imply that Nixon wasn't in the service. He served in the Pacific as a Naval Officer.

Look at the post again. I said that to the best of my recollection, Nixon was the only president I mentioned who DID serve.

 

[Dr Grump]

...and we won't even get started on Juniors "service"...

 

[Gunny]

...and we won't even get started on Juniors "service"...

Y'know, I WAS going to leave this thread alone. However .....

Go ahead and start. He served, and was discharged when he opted out when they did away with the F-102.

Easily covered, actually.

 

[jillian]

 

[Gunny]

That's EXACTLY how I feel everytime the bullshit bashing rhetoric gets rolled out.

Just more of the perpetuate the myth until people believe it psychology. Take heart though ... there ARE people who believe you.

Then again, there are people voting for Obama ....

 

[onedomino]

It depends on the individul. There were excellent Presidents that had little or no military experience and there were excellent Presidents that had a lot of military experience. The oposite is also true. From the example given above, I would comment that Lincoln was a great President, but he was a poor Commander in Chief. Very poor. He went through five or six commanders and thousands of lives before he found a commander who knew how to end the war: Grant. Lincoln's lack of military experience served the country poorly during the war, and he was bailed out time and again by the expertise of his Secretary of War Stanton. On the other side, Jefferson Davis had a lot of military experience and was a former US Secretary of War. And he pretty much found the best commanders right away and the South won almost every major battle during the first two years of the war.

 

[jillian]

and the South won almost every major battle during the first two years of the war.

And then they found the war wasn't lost/won only because of commanders, but because of the south having no manufacturing ability... no raw materials for arms, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...or so many threads seem to say / imply.

Its really quite simple:

Military service matters if the Democrat that is running has some.
If he doesnlt then it doesn't.

See: Election 2004 v 2008

 

[M14 Shooter]

The thinking is that if someone has had military service, they are more equipped to be Commander in Chief. I agree with you, I think that's probably incorrect. Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt (Franklin) served in the military and they were the two greatest presidents I can think of.

Lincoln was a cavalry officer in 4th Regiment of Mounted Volunteers (IL militia), Black Hawk War, 1832.

And I think of all of the above, [Nixon] was the only one to serve if I'm not incorrect.

The only post-war President to NOT serve in the military was WJBC.

 

[Ravi]

Its really quite simple:

Military service matters if the Democrat that is running has some.
If he doesnlt then it doesn't.

See: Election 2004 v 2008

Funny.

Bush's military service didn't serve us well.

 

[David_N]

Maybe gives a more credible worldview!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny.
Bush's military service didn't serve us well.

Besides the fact that this is just partisan bigotry, its utterly irrelevant to what I said.

 

[Ravi]

Besides the fact that this is just partisan bigotry, its utterly irrelevant to what I said.

Partisan bigotry? Roughly 3/4 of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and the handling of it botched.

But feel free to describe how you think Bush's military service has benefited us as a nation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Partisan bigotry? Roughly 3/4 of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and the handling of it botched.

But feel free to describe how you think Bush's military service has benefited us as a nation.

Mob mentality does not make something right or wrong. I still think the reasons given were valid and in fact have been proven to be true. Saddam Hussein would have gotten sabctions lifted as early as 2003 and no latter then 2004 as far as I can tell. He would have returned to chemical and biological weapons produsction and he would hve returned to searching for the means to make a nuke. He already was working on long range more accurate missiles and he would have continued to look for a group willing to do his dirty work.

We would now be faced with a rearmed, renewed Iraq under Saddam Hussein and with the real threat of attacks on us from him by terrorists or his own secret forces. Kuwait and the entire region would once again be threatened by Iraq.

All the terrorists and recruits they had in Iraq over the last 5 years would have been used else where, possibly in Afghanistan and more likely with bigger and more terror strikes else where around the world.

We made mistakes in the war in Iraq, but nothing critical. In fact every war we have ever had we made mistakes at first. One reason being we train to fight the last war and we never end up actually doing that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Partisan bigotry? Roughly 3/4 of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and the handling of it botched.

If 3/4 of Americans thought 2+2=5, they'd still be wrong.

And, again, your statement is utterly irrelevant to what I said.