Should the President have Military Experience?

If you want a Warlord/King, then go ahead. The President is there for the people of the country, not to do war. He is suppose to be the one that make sure the population doesn't go out of control through policy and law making. He is also there to warn the country of any incoming threats internally or externally.

Too bad JFK died through internal threat.

I think so, I mean it wouldn't hurt, how can they make good decisions if they have no experience or perspectives based on personal experiences? of course they have military advisers, but its not the same. And after all, being in military does give you some insight on making better decisions, leadership and discipline.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The current potus doesn't.

His vice president is a draft dodger.

So really anyone trying to make issue out of military experience is doing just that MAKING it an issue.

YES, he is the commander in chief. Seems like the Socialist Islamic Democrats response to our enemies is talk to them, give them a big hug hold hands and skip out into a field and pick daisies. I'm sorry there are some people in this world the only thing they understand is a gun stuck in their face. we are making the same mistake with Iran that the PM of England Neville Chamberlain made with Hitler " peace in out lifetime" he came back from Germany with all the signed non aggression acts. HA HA, Good thing Churchill came along.

Those that haven't served are out of touch. It hurts those that do serve. They have no reference point in true sacrifice. From the medi-eval times and back, the kings and rulers themselves lead and engaged in war. Heck, George Washington served. How do you lead when you can't make a true commitment for your country? All members of congress and the executive branch should have experience in the military arena. If your going to wage war, fight and lead the damn battle! Learn what real sacrifice is.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No - because a President should be like a Captain of a ship.

The President or any leader of a country should have a support structure that includes advanced military knowledge and intelligence. This same support structure should also include the same acumen in economics, fiscal policy, social sciences, education, health care and all indeed all areas that require attention to effectively run a country.

Just like a Captain, the POTUS should be a unique personable individual that surrounds himself with experts in all fields that provide the answers to the questions the Captains asks - so that the correct response can be made to protect the interest of the Ship (country) and her crew (population).

Well put. Perfect analogy.

Although George Washington was the ultimate commander of the armed forces with his military background, the Presidency today is run by the CFR and lately what is called the Shadow Party. Most the defense secretaries since Truman have been CFR

In Sen. Barry Goldwater's 1979 memoir, With No Apologies, he wrote: "When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy." That's because CFR members have held almost every key position in every Administration, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton.
During that period, every Secretary of State (with the exception of Cordell Hull, James F. Byrnes, and William Rogers) has been a member. Every Secretary of Defense from the Truman Administration up to the Clinton Administration (with the exception of Melvin Laird) has been a member. Since 1920, most of the Treasury Secretaries have been members; and since the Eisenhower Administration, nearly all of the National Security Advisors have been members.

modernhistoryproject.org...

So maybe it would be a good thing for our Commander in Chief to also have military experience, but the truth is the CFR runs all the policies and military actions.

Current one may be a bit rogue but nevertheless still overshadowed by CFR.

absolutely not
in a perfect world maybe
but in this world all that means is more multibillion dollar contracts sweatheart deals favoritism and propaganda
(except those things are now even more so for unnecessary violence)

theres a reason most of the military tend to lean one way
and for a couple it might be freedom honor and the american way hoorah
but for most and for the people selling them their gear its a paycheck (one which they would like to see become larger)
whats good for their business is really really bad for everyone else


so.... yeah.... would rather not give them more leverage than they already have

wah wah i know im a pussy because i dont want to spend absolutely insane sums of money on the military so we can go to war with our "enemies" who pose little to no real threat (but really so we can support the inevitable failing petrodollar we shouldnt have relied on or forced on the world in the first place)

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes. But they have to be in the war zone, same goes for the whole damn administration. They should fight on the front line, god damn it. Tired of the dead bodies and war torn families. This # has got to stop and we need proper healthcare now instead of 50 million dollar fighter jets and bombs. i got a medical necessary surgery ill never be able to get because I had # insurance which is the only one I was offered, where are my human rights my forefathers died an agonizing death for, you don't realize how screwed we are until you get screwed. MAKE THEM FIGHT WE ARE FUNDING IT with our minimum wage which they take almost 30 percent of!

a reply to: enlightenedservant

none of this matters until we do away with campaign contributions, at least.