Commander in Chief

[Melissa426]

I am going to need some help from some of you history buffs, plus anyone who wants to offer an opinion ( not that there are too many shrinking violets around here who need encouragement to speak their mind!)

Do you feel that the Commander in Chief needs military experience to lead effectively during a time of war? Or is this issue with GW simply that he pulled a few strings and got out of serious and real service during Viet Nam?

I am going back thru recent history looking at presidents during war to see who did and who did not have experience. Help me here.

Clinton... none / Somalia and ?Haiti and Serb/Croatia
G. Bush... WW II pilot / Desert Storm
Ronald Reagan... none / Panama ?Grenada
J. Carter.... navy
G. Ford.... ? / end of Viet Nam
R. Nixon...? / Viet Nam
LB Johnson...? / Viet Nam
JFK.... navy / beginning of Viet Nam
DD Eisenhower... Army
HS Truman.....? / end of WW II and Korean Conflict
FDR......? / WW II


Opinions?

Peace,
Melissa

 

[michaeledward]

Of course the President does not need to have military experience to be an effective Commander-in-Chief.

The President should be able to seek the council of those whose career is fighting and killing, and use that council to decide a course of action for the nations military when war is declared by Congress.

The Congress should be able to recognize a threat to the nation, and fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities and declare war when necessary (not that Grant Authority to the President crap).

That President Bush pulled a few strings to get into the Texas ANG;
That President Bush went Absent-Without-Leave;
That President Bush was a Deserter from the military has nothing to do with his ineffectiveness as a Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush's ineffectiveness as Commander-in-Chief comes from his reliance on:

• Prayer
• Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle & Kristol
• Ahmed Chalabi - a fugitive from Jordanian justice, an accused Iranian spy, an accused Iraqi counterfeiter

and his lack of reliance upon:

• Powell, Clarke
• United Nations Weapons Inspectors
• CIA National Intelligence Estimate
• And reading a friggin' newspaper once-in-a-while

Thanks - Mike

 

[Melissa426]

Of course the President does not need to have military experience to be an effective Commander-in-Chief.

The President should be able to seek the council of those whose career is fighting and killing, and use that council to decide a course of action for the nations military when war is declared by Congress.

The Congress should be able to recognize a threat to the nation, and fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities and declare war when necessary (not that Grant Authority to the President crap).

That President Bush pulled a few strings to get into the Texas ANG;
That President Bush went Absent-Without-Leave;
That President Bush was a Deserter from the military has nothing to do with his ineffectiveness as a Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush's ineffectiveness as Commander-in-Chief comes from his reliance on:

• Prayer
• Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle & Kristol
• Ahmed Chalabi - a fugitive from Jordanian justice, an accused Iranian spy, an accused Iraqi counterfeiter

and his lack of reliance upon:

• Powell, Clarke
• United Nations Weapons Inspectors
• CIA National Intelligence Estimate
• And reading a friggin' newspaper once-in-a-while

Thanks - Mike

OK. Very succinct and reasonable response.


This is outside the scope of my original question, but:
How will John Kerry be better?
What will he do different? Will he try to negotiate to end Iraq occupation with other nations? Asking them to take bigger role in post-war Iraqi affairs?
What if they say, no thanks?
What if, while negotiating, the terrorist seize the moment to strike again? (not that this couldn't happen again under GW's watch)
I haven't been listening that close to Kerry, but I haven't heard real specific answers to these questions.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Clinton... None / Somalia and ?Haiti and Serb/Croatia
G. Bush... WW II pilot / Desert Storm
Ronald Reagan... Made films for U.S. Army / Panama ?Grenada, Lebanon
J. Carter.... Navy Iran Hostage rescue
G. Ford.... Navy / end of Viet Nam
R. Nixon...Navy / Viet Nam
LB Johnson...Navy / Viet Nam
JFK.... Navy / beginning of Viet Nam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle crisis
DD Eisenhower... Army
HS Truman.....Army / end of WW II and Korean Conflict
FDR...... None / WW II

Note here that FDR had no military experience, and was effective during WWII. Clinton's operations in Kosovo caused no American casualties. The Somalia debacle can be attributed to poor military planning on the part of officers in Clinton's chain of command. These lessons haven't been applied, apparently, in Iraq. Troops are still fighting in urban terrain in Humvees instead of armored vehicles. So no...military experience isn't a requirement for being a good Commander in Chief. Four Naval veterans saw the Viet Nam war from start to end (and Eisenhower and Truman's foreign policies set the stage for that war), and this conflict was ruinous to the military and the morale of the nation.

Bush's inexperience in military matters (his service with the National Guard was brief) isn't his greatest failing as a Commander in Chief. He's illiterate. In the sense of the word here I mean that he doesn't read, rather than lacks a capacity to do so.

Many suspect he is dyslexic, given his verbal gaffes, so it is possible he does indeed have a learning disability. If so, this would explain his reluctance to review reports handed to him. He no doubt can read, but perhaps with difficulty. He does well with a teleprompter, but these are all well rehearsed speeches.

If the dyslexia theory is wrong and he can read but simply doesn't, this then reflects an intellectual laziness on his part.

Reading suggestion: Mark Crispin Miller's The Bush Dyslexicon.


Regards,

Steve

 

[OULobo]

I personally think that a President with military experience is a trait that lets the public know that the individual has been in the situation of an average citizen and risked thier life the same way. The problem is that the notion that a soldier is a good representative of everyday folk is expired. Now, without the draft or a large scale war that enlists an excessive amount of the population, there are less people who enter the service and more of a chance that a person can pull a cush MOS because daddy is rich or a politician. This may be the last election where military service is a heavy issue, that is unless a draft is reinstated.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I personally think that a President with military experience is a trait that lets the public know that the individual has been in the situation of an average citizen and risked thier life the same way. The problem is that the notion that a soldier is a good representative of everyday folk is expired. Now, without the draft or a large scale war that enlists an excessive amount of the population, there are less people who enter the service and more of a chance that a person can pull a cush MOS because daddy is rich or a politician. This may be the last election where military service is a heavy issue, that is unless a draft is reinstated.

Or, on the other hand, it might be the first of many elections where military service is an issue.

One thing that qualifies Kerry insofar as being a veteran is his treatment of veterans. He is a champion of veteran's rights and benefits. A quick search of the Senate's records resulted in six bills he sponsored or co-sponsored recently:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

One of these, S50, guaranteed adequate funding for veteran's health care.

Another, S1112, allows the VA to provide drugs provided by a civilian physician until that time they can get adequate VA care for specific conditions. Read: Blood pressure meds. Read: Insulin.

He voted YES on S Con Res 57 that added $13 billion to veteran's benefits in 1997.

Here's an article at Military.com that talks about Kerry's stance on the extremely unfair Disable Veteran's tax:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Youmans_100903,00.html

He's pushed for care for veterans suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome, Agent Orange poisioning, and Gulf War Syndrome:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Kerry_pushes_to_provide_041803.htm

Kerry cancelled a New Mexico campaign trip in order to vote for veterans benefits...and Bill Frist cancelled the vote to spite him.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...are_kerry_appearance_causes_uproar_in_senate/

Type in "veterans cuts" on Google and you'll see how George Bush has honored those who have served.


Regards,


Steve