As we enter this year's election cycle, we are being bombarded with the military experience issue. Off the top of my head, I recall that in the 20th Century our presidents have had a variety of military experiences. Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (both) served in some capacity. In battle, arguably only Roosevelt, Truman, Ford and Bush were engaged in actual combat operations. I am open to question on that point, but my question to the group is "How important is military experience in selecting a president?"
DJ
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
How much should military experience count?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 20, 2004 - 09:43 PM UTC
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:06 PM UTC
I don't think military experience matters. I think Reagan is probably one of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen. IIRC he never served in the military in any capacity. FDR, arguably this countries greatest "war president" was never in the service. (I personally am not much of an FDR fan). Lincoln served only briefly during the Black Hawk War. Grant served his country well in wartime but failed miserably politically. He only avoided dying penniless by getting an advance to write his memoirs.
Military experience has become an issue in this election because someone thought it would be a great idea to make it an issue.
Good topic, DJ.
Shaun
Military experience has become an issue in this election because someone thought it would be a great idea to make it an issue.
Good topic, DJ.
Shaun
Hollowpoint
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 2,748 Posts
KitMaker Network: 841 Posts
Posted: Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:57 PM UTC
Just an FYI for Shaun -- Ronald Reagan did serve in the military, first as a National Guard cavalry officer and then in the Air Corps.
An excerpt from a DoD release following his death:
An excerpt from a DoD release following his death:
Quoted Text
In 1937, Reagan left for California and signed as an actor with Warner Brothers. His most famous role was that of George Gipp, the Notre Dame football star in "Knute Rockne – All American," made in 1940. He also starred in the 1942 film "Kings Row." In 1937, Reagan joined the Army National Guard and was soon made a cavalry second lieutenant. The cavalry back then still rode horses.
He married his co-star in the film "Brother Rat" – Jane Wyman – in 1940. With America's entry into World War II, Reagan was called to active duty. He was assigned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, Calif. Reagan made more than 400 training films with the unit, and was discharged as a captain in 1945.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 04:37 AM UTC
What about the general publics lack of understanding regarding military service now as compared to the days of Truman and Eisenhower. Are people less likely now to understand the value of awards and the over inflation of efficiency reports?
DJ
DJ
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 05:36 AM UTC
First, thanks Bob. I did not know that Reagan served in the military and I have been a Reagan fan since I was old enough to vote. Second, DJ, I will offer up my all time favorite Winston Churchill quote: "I was always been a great fan of representative democracy until I met five registered voters."
I am getting jaded in my old age. (I am 40) I used to try to convince people to vote but any more the way I have it figured if they don't care enough to register and vote they probably are not informed enough to make a decision based on their own values.
That's all I am going to say because I don't want to cross the bounds into current events.
Thanks DJ for the forum, and your moderation.
Shaun
I am getting jaded in my old age. (I am 40) I used to try to convince people to vote but any more the way I have it figured if they don't care enough to register and vote they probably are not informed enough to make a decision based on their own values.
That's all I am going to say because I don't want to cross the bounds into current events.
Thanks DJ for the forum, and your moderation.
Shaun
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 08:20 PM UTC
Shaun-- the connection to current events should make us discuss the past hist history of presidential experience. I personally see it as a plus, but do not dispute it is a neutral factor. For example, Harry Truman led an artillery battery in World War I. Korea was a mess that his previous military experience at the tactical level never prepared him to deal with. Franklin Roosevelt never served yet ably led the country through WW II. Everyday the national government (Legislative and executive branches) make decision regarding medicine. Yet, few are qualified doctors. They rely on experts to assist them. Same thing as regards national defense. So, is it a neutral quality whose political attraction is as a ornament to attract voter attention?
DJ
DJ
Hollowpoint
Member Since: January 24, 2002
entire network: 2,748 Posts
KitMaker Network: 841 Posts
Posted: Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:27 PM UTC
I don't think it really matters whether or not a president has military experience. What really matters are the people around him advising him on making decisions. I think we've already established that there have been great presidents with no military experience and not-so-great presidents with military experience. Anyone remember a former Navy officer named Jimmy Carter?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 07:11 PM UTC
Bob-- you certainly raised an interesting point. The selection of uniformed and civilian advisers. How does one go about collecting this body of expertise? What is the criteria one should use?
DJ
DJ
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:30 AM UTC
I think previous military service by a president "Should" make that individual more cognizant of the price paid by the members of the military. I generally see it as a bonus - hopefully the president will think first of freely using the military when other options are still avaiable.
I said "should" above, as I believe it hasn't always applied. The counter to this argument is that an individual that saw serious combat action may be "gun shy" and never want to use the military and cause the death of service members.
I believe, though that more politicians should have military experience. Then they will better understand the price for freedom.
I said "should" above, as I believe it hasn't always applied. The counter to this argument is that an individual that saw serious combat action may be "gun shy" and never want to use the military and cause the death of service members.
I believe, though that more politicians should have military experience. Then they will better understand the price for freedom.
Gunny
Member Since: July 13, 2004
entire network: 6,705 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,084 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 04:09 AM UTC
Kudo's Jeff...
I agree whole heartedly with what you have just posted...Personally, I would much rather have a leader of my country who has had former, if not extensive military service...Just think about it...Problem solving, tactics, responsibility, maturity, strength and above all true Patriotism. Something that I feel can only be achieved by an ex-military man.
Sincerely
Gunny
I agree whole heartedly with what you have just posted...Personally, I would much rather have a leader of my country who has had former, if not extensive military service...Just think about it...Problem solving, tactics, responsibility, maturity, strength and above all true Patriotism. Something that I feel can only be achieved by an ex-military man.
Sincerely
Gunny
tom
Member Since: December 01, 2003
entire network: 681 Posts
KitMaker Network: 193 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 04:28 AM UTC
I think since 9-11 this country needs some one who will not back down from the terriost who hate freedom. I think since kerry was in Nam he hates war because that was a polical war.
They need it to understand where to be patient enough but not run away when we need a strong leader in the white house.
That's why most good presidents where in a war time environtment to learn about control and when to just move in and protect us and or troops.
Happy Modeling
They need it to understand where to be patient enough but not run away when we need a strong leader in the white house.
That's why most good presidents where in a war time environtment to learn about control and when to just move in and protect us and or troops.
Happy Modeling
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:27 AM UTC
I have to agree with Jeff. Those that served have a feel of the price that is payed, those that served in actual combat probably more so than any civilian could hope to comprehend. But the key point is political advisors. The best and most qualified should get these positions not the Prez's old drinking buddy. Reagan I think was one of the best, Coolege one of the worst in his selections.
KFMagee
Member Since: January 08, 2002
entire network: 1,586 Posts
KitMaker Network: 302 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:37 AM UTC
Well - Military service is important to me, but not more important than integrity. Remember, Hitler was in WWII and decorated with the Iron Cross (one of the few corporals to receive the award in that war), but look what a looney leader he was. Medals do not make the man (especially when he throws them away), but Character, Reliability, and Integrity cound the most for me. Clinton was quite smart, but his own WIFE couldn't trust him. I feel better knowing that President Bush is in control. Just my personal opinion of course.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 07:54 PM UTC
I am becoming convinced that a military experience cuts both ways. The positive is that a president who experiences the military comes away with a sense of team work and mission accomplishment. The down side is that if he experiences war, he is conditioned by the experience` I would put it in the context of a politican who was also a fireman. When it comes time to vote for appropriations for the firefighters, he speaks with a certain degree of experience. However, if he had never been a fireman would that matter? I think not.
DJ
DJ
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:22 AM UTC
Just as a curosity - Clinton was the first President since FDR that did not have any military experience. If you give FDR credit for having been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy, military experience goes way back for Presidents.
Tin_Can
Member Since: January 26, 2002
entire network: 1,560 Posts
KitMaker Network: 344 Posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:37 AM UTC
I believe that the Commander in Chief needs the experience of some type of military background so that he can understand the implications/consequences of sending troops into battle. The only way to gain that first hand experience is to serve-end of story.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I believe that the Commander in Chief needs the experience of some type of military background so that he can understand the implications/consequences of sending troops into battle. The only way to gain that first hand experience is to serve-end of story.
Tom-- I do not see it the same way. Do you need to be a policeman to vote on apprpriations for the police? Personal experienec is great but there is too much ground for a president to cover for him to be experienced in all aspects of the government. Kennedy was a fine Naval officer, but got us into Cuba and Vietnam.
DJ
Tin_Can
Member Since: January 26, 2002
entire network: 1,560 Posts
KitMaker Network: 344 Posts
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 02:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI believe that the Commander in Chief needs the experience of some type of military background so that he can understand the implications/consequences of sending troops into battle. The only way to gain that first hand experience is to serve-end of story.
Tom-- I do not see it the same way. Do you need to be a policeman to vote on apprpriations for the police? Personal experienec is great but there is too much ground for a president to cover for him to be experienced in all aspects of the government. Kennedy was a fine Naval officer, but got us into Cuba and Vietnam.
DJ
Voting in appropriations and sending people into battle are two different things. I didn't say that the POTUS needed to be experienced in all aspects of government either as just having experience in one service won't do that. I do think, though, that some form of military experience should be a required before serving as the CINC.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:49 PM UTC
Bryan-- I guess we will soon find out if a person with previous military experience appeals to the American people to be their next leader.
DJ
DJ
Tin_Can
Member Since: January 26, 2002
entire network: 1,560 Posts
KitMaker Network: 344 Posts
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2004 - 12:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Bryan-- I guess we will soon find out if a person with previous military experience appeals to the American people to be their next leader.
DJ
DJ, I think you're right. I do find it professionally embarrassing, though, as a military officer myself, that both candidates have so many skeletons in the closet regarding their military background.
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:14 PM UTC
What a great question. I can see both sides to this one.
I don't think that military experiance is a must to be The President. Although it looks nice when running.
What matters to me is the person have the ability to understand what the situation is hand, disseminate the info given to him by the "experts" around him and make the decisions based what is needed to get the job done. Not what it would look like politically.
Roosevelt gave the military what they needed to get the job done, and it got done.
The first Gulf War. The Commander and Chief gave the Military what was needed to get the job done and they did it.
I used those two examples because one man had a military background and one didn't, but both seemed to understand that once they presented a mission to their commanders. Needs may change with certain situations within a changing enviorment. Neither really hindered the operations because the public may not re-elect him if he gave the green light.
The only real political decision/ hinderance made in the first Gulf War. Was not to go all the way into Bahgdad After we accomplished what we said we were going to do originally. But up until then none was really seen or talked about.
I hope this makes sense
Paul
I don't think that military experiance is a must to be The President. Although it looks nice when running.
What matters to me is the person have the ability to understand what the situation is hand, disseminate the info given to him by the "experts" around him and make the decisions based what is needed to get the job done. Not what it would look like politically.
Roosevelt gave the military what they needed to get the job done, and it got done.
The first Gulf War. The Commander and Chief gave the Military what was needed to get the job done and they did it.
I used those two examples because one man had a military background and one didn't, but both seemed to understand that once they presented a mission to their commanders. Needs may change with certain situations within a changing enviorment. Neither really hindered the operations because the public may not re-elect him if he gave the green light.
The only real political decision/ hinderance made in the first Gulf War. Was not to go all the way into Bahgdad After we accomplished what we said we were going to do originally. But up until then none was really seen or talked about.
I hope this makes sense
Paul
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:43 PM UTC
Paul--- may I recommend that you consider starting a thread on your statement that "we should have gone to Baghdad after Gulf One." There is a question that should provoke some interesting dialogue. As to the question at hand on military experience, I would say the only contender that had any military experience was Clark. Other than him, the two current candidates have very limited (and, IMHO, dubious) military experience. It is interesting to see both sides claim that the experiences of a very junior officer qualifies him to be the CINC. It is my belief that those experiences should have prepared him for further development. I am always asking myself " okay that's what he did in the 70's--what has done since then?"
DJ
DJ
armorguy
Member Since: June 25, 2004
entire network: 269 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:29 AM UTC
I don't feel that military service makes a huge difference as to how a president performs his duties. It probably should have taught the person many lessons, but how well they learn to apply those is a different matter entirely.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 01:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't feel that military service makes a huge difference as to how a president performs his duties. It probably should have taught the person many lessons, but how well they learn to apply those is a different matter entirely.
Agree. One should appreciate that the presidency is more than one man. It is one man who selects a team of professionals who can aid him in the decision making process. Roosevelt, for example, had no military experience except for a short stint as an undersecretary of the Navy. Yet, he gathered about him a team that ceratinly knew how to execute what Roosevelt decided to do. The team composition is vital. Will Bush/Cheney be the stronger team builders or will Kerry/Edwards?
DJ
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:19 AM UTC
I have five words that scare the heck out of me then I am out of this thread,
"Secretary of State Jimmy Carter." Ponder that.
Cheers
Shaun
"Secretary of State Jimmy Carter." Ponder that.
Cheers
Shaun
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.