Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cantilever

Should a person wanting to be President be required to have military experience?

Rate this topic

48 posts in this topic

It seems in past generations that military experience was something most Presidents had.

 

Can someone be a good leader without military experience? Or be good enough of a leader that the military would respect the orders of a non experienced President?

 

This isnt really a partisan thing either. Plenty of Dems and Reps in the past had military experience.

 

Should a R or D or whatever currently in government with aspirations to become President be required to join the military first?

 

Im not sure how to answer that. I guess that some people are born to lead and will do well leading whatever they get into. But I can also see some worry in taking orders from someone about something they have no experience in.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful, but no. It's a civilian position and should be available to all citizens. Brains and leadership can make up for it by knowing who to hire to advise you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when i think of a leader of a country required to have military experience i think of places like Panama or other places where juntas have occurred.

 

its a factor in electing the, but it would be a very bad prerequisite. all of the talk of president with no private sector experience: a president with nothing but military experience would be just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about training?

 

Im ignorant to this, but once we have a winner in votes, what kind of training is offered for that person for the few months before they become the official president?

 

I know Obama got told things, but does that include some type of training?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostHow about training?

 

 

Im ignorant to this, but once we have a winner in votes, what kind of training is offered for that person for the few months before they become the official president?

 

 

I know Obama got told things, but does that include some type of training?

 

i'm not sure what would be needed. i mean, a CEO of a corporation relies on his experts. A CEO might not be a CPA, so he relies on his CFO. same with technology, marketing, etc.

 

 

he has his joint chiefs of staff and other advisors. i think that would be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't get or need training (although I'm sure the JCS does a sort of primer if needed.) They are briefed and advised. The DoD is supposed to be set up to be commanded by a civilian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I personally feel prior military experience would be an asset when looking at a presidential candidate...I think having it written in as a hard and fast requirement can potentially bar some otherwise highly qualified candidates who might be outstanding leaders of our Nation.

 

For instance, someone with a minor physical limitation (For instance, Exercise -induced Asthma requiring the use of an inhaler or a surgically reconstructed joint as a result of a sports or automobile accident...please do not pick these examples apart...they are just off the top of my head for the sake of the discussion) may be unable to serve in the military and thus would not meet this requirement if it were in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No .... but I could wish that everyone who holds elective office in Washington, the Cabinet officials, and the incoming President and VP go through a three week program of case analysis devoted to the unforseen consequences of military ventures past. War can offer, to the unsophisticated and the uninformed, a facade of an easy policy decision. It can look easy. We have all this cool stuff.....

 

Make one case of the Kennedy Administration's decision to connive at assassinating the Diem brothers. (They're in the way, if they're gone, we'll be able to have a non-Communist democracy, get lots of support in S. Vietnam. Nothing to lose........) How about making LBJ's administration of the war a case study in the hazards of long-range micromanagement. (Politicians, especially successful ones, are control freaks.) Make the operations that ended at Desert One in Iran another case study.

(At least we learned something there; you could make a good argument that the current excellence in SOCOM that we enjoy started with the everything-went-wrong mess at Desert One.) Make arming fundamentalist Islamic guerrillas against the Russians; did anyone even consider the possibility of blowback? Was there any thought to anything beyond a chance to give the Russians a hotfoot? Letting Pakistan administer American aid to the insurgents, now, there's a different concern; did anyone even think of the distinction in interests between Pakistan and the US? (I doubt it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.