It seems to me like the COMMANDER IN CHIEF should have more military experience; however, a better question might be whether the President should be the Commander-in-Chief? How can a person with no military experience be expected to make top level military decisions?
So, I'd rephrase the question like this, "If you want the U.S. President to be the Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, don't you think more military than executive experience is of utmost importance since so many lives may potentially be at stake?" There should not be anyone "in charge" who essentially has his/her head up his or her ass as far as smart military decisions are concerned?
[1 point]138 days ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 138 days ago by Chipmonk
The Commander in Chief does not necessarily amke strategic decisions. That's what he has Generals for. He decides when those strategic decisions become necessary, and which of them he is willing to commit the country to. He is in the position of being able to consider the diplomatic effects of military policy.
Generals propose, Presidents dispose. General Garner proposed setting up free, monitored elections in Iraq and then getting the hell out, as per stated policy, and Bush fired him for it. Generals propose, Presidents dispose.
Withdrawing or not from Iraq is a matter of policy, not strategy. Bush sets that policy, not the generals.
Not as much as having someone whose training is to ignore anything and everything except the strategy necessary to win. Policy should not be determined by military goals. Eisenhower was an anomaly, a political General who made it to the top in wartime--but it was that political know-how that made him effective as President, despite what his detractors say. Can you imagine a Patton in the White House? The planet would be a glowing cinder.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
"A Glowing Cinder" Ha! I doubt it! When BO becomes president (yikes did I say that?), just watch how little respect this country gets. The last 911 will seem like a minor accident with that wienie in office.
The problem in the world today is that people view stregth as evil. I'm not saying that the Iraq war was a wise decision, but withdrawing in the middle of all the turmoil shows weakness. We are in it and must see it through in order to establish some form of stability in the middle east. And when I say "some order of stability" that is all we can hope for. Most Muslim poeple want peace, but those who do not will summarily take over if we jump and run. These are hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America.
Read here what we are doing for the Iraqi people from month to month and try to be more positive about our troops being over there as they are improving their lives and country every day.
All the people who have died and served in the armed forces give you the freedom to makes choices about your life as to what church you go to, what house you live in, what job you have and the ability to express yourself without the fear of being shot in the head. Seems to me you'd be a little thankful for that. But it doesn't matter. Those of us who have served do it for everyone even people like you.
Both my parents served during wartime in th military; my father in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, and the Cold War, my mother in Korea. Both felt that the US was, as a result of its Cold War hysteria, taking a turn towards totalitarianism, and both deplored it. Both disapproved of Viet Nam as imperialistic in nature, and if either were still alive, I am sure they would have opposed Iraq. As my father said, "THIS is not what I fought and nearly died for." and as my mother said, "government is now opposed to freedom in this country."
Not everyone who disagrees with you is unpatriotic. And a lot of people, ESPECIALLY veterans, are opposed to meaningless wars based on lies having nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with greed.
I can think of one hell of a lot more qualifications than knowing how to shoot people when it comes to being a national leader. Especially in the USA and especially for 2009 - 2013. The US economy is going down the sewer and knowledge of weaponry isn't going do diddlysquat in solving the dilemma.
[1 point]138 days ago by HauliReplyEdited 138 days ago by Hauli
Don't forget, the US military is over there to help rebuild Iraq while they are killing the terrorists - try to keep that little idea in mind by checking this website often to see how badly we are destroying that country.
Being in the military is a lot more than knowing how to shot somebody. Military leaders save your cowardly ass everyday. Not just by shooting somoeone but understanding that strength in the face of tyranny can change the world. I guess all those military leaders in WW2 were just a bunch of idiots who knew how to shoot people. God forbid if Hitler would have prevailed and he would have without the brave people who stood up to defend your place in the world.
You are wasting your breath on these "quit & run" pansies. They will only understand what is going on when the Taliban come marching thru Times Square like the Nazis did in France.
excuse me but the president always want to start a war?!!!! is he the president or is he a war starter?!! why should he or she have military experience when there must be always peace for every one?!!! does this mean that we must get killed by the president of usa?! :-S
We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
It seems to me like the COMMANDER IN CHIEF should have more military experience; however, a better question might be whether the President should be the Commander-in-Chief? How can a person with no military experience be expected to make top level military decisions?
So, I'd rephrase the question like this, "If you want the U.S. President to be the Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, don't you think more military than executive experience is of utmost importance since so many lives may potentially be at stake?" There should not be anyone "in charge" who essentially has his/her head up his or her ass as far as smart military decisions are concerned?
The Commander in Chief does not necessarily amke strategic decisions. That's what he has Generals for. He decides when those strategic decisions become necessary, and which of them he is willing to commit the country to. He is in the position of being able to consider the diplomatic effects of military policy.
So generals are ultimately responsible for the lack of timely progress in withdrawing from Iraq?
Generals propose, Presidents dispose. General Garner proposed setting up free, monitored elections in Iraq and then getting the hell out, as per stated policy, and Bush fired him for it. Generals propose, Presidents dispose.
Withdrawing or not from Iraq is a matter of policy, not strategy. Bush sets that policy, not the generals.
God that sucks! :(
Not as much as having someone whose training is to ignore anything and everything except the strategy necessary to win. Policy should not be determined by military goals. Eisenhower was an anomaly, a political General who made it to the top in wartime--but it was that political know-how that made him effective as President, despite what his detractors say. Can you imagine a Patton in the White House? The planet would be a glowing cinder.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
"A Glowing Cinder" Ha! I doubt it! When BO becomes president (yikes did I say that?), just watch how little respect this country gets. The last 911 will seem like a minor accident with that wienie in office.
I agree, he will only scale down the military and think he can negociate with terrorists who's only goal is to kill us. God help us if he is elected.
The problem in the world today is that people view stregth as evil. I'm not saying that the Iraq war was a wise decision, but withdrawing in the middle of all the turmoil shows weakness. We are in it and must see it through in order to establish some form of stability in the middle east. And when I say "some order of stability" that is all we can hope for. Most Muslim poeple want peace, but those who do not will summarily take over if we jump and run. These are hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America.
Gee, how much strength does it take to leave babies dead in ditches? Makes us look real fearsome, right?
And just how does that make life better for anyone? The cost is destroying our economy, and the reality is destroying their country.
Read here what we are doing for the Iraqi people from month to month and try to be more positive about our troops being over there as they are improving their lives and country every day.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html
All the people who have died and served in the armed forces give you the freedom to makes choices about your life as to what church you go to, what house you live in, what job you have and the ability to express yourself without the fear of being shot in the head. Seems to me you'd be a little thankful for that. But it doesn't matter. Those of us who have served do it for everyone even people like you.
Both my parents served during wartime in th military; my father in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, and the Cold War, my mother in Korea. Both felt that the US was, as a result of its Cold War hysteria, taking a turn towards totalitarianism, and both deplored it. Both disapproved of Viet Nam as imperialistic in nature, and if either were still alive, I am sure they would have opposed Iraq. As my father said, "THIS is not what I fought and nearly died for." and as my mother said, "government is now opposed to freedom in this country."
Not everyone who disagrees with you is unpatriotic. And a lot of people, ESPECIALLY veterans, are opposed to meaningless wars based on lies having nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with greed.
agree
I can think of one hell of a lot more qualifications than knowing how to shoot people when it comes to being a national leader. Especially in the USA and especially for 2009 - 2013. The US economy is going down the sewer and knowledge of weaponry isn't going do diddlysquat in solving the dilemma.
Not much will, except getting out of this war and reining in the multi-nationals.
Don't forget, the US military is over there to help rebuild Iraq while they are killing the terrorists - try to keep that little idea in mind by checking this website often to see how badly we are destroying that country.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html
Being in the military is a lot more than knowing how to shot somebody. Military leaders save your cowardly ass everyday. Not just by shooting somoeone but understanding that strength in the face of tyranny can change the world. I guess all those military leaders in WW2 were just a bunch of idiots who knew how to shoot people. God forbid if Hitler would have prevailed and he would have without the brave people who stood up to defend your place in the world.
You are wasting your breath on these "quit & run" pansies. They will only understand what is going on when the Taliban come marching thru Times Square like the Nazis did in France.
excuse me but the president always want to start a war?!!!! is he the president or is he a war starter?!! why should he or she have military experience when there must be always peace for every one?!!! does this mean that we must get killed by the president of usa?! :-S
Tell it to your war inspired leaders Saeed. They are trying to start WW3.