Would Pres. Obama be a better CIC if he had served?

[commanding]

Would Pres. Obama be a "better" commander in chief, had he served in the military during his life? I realize you don't have to be a cook to know how to boil an egg, but what do you think about his understanding of the sacrifices made by our military, and the need for additional combat troops in A. as well as other military matters?

[jupiter]

At what degree? I don't know, but IMHO, yes, previus experience in that field would be certainly good.

[commanding]

Well say for instance a 2 star general in the US army....is he a better commander than some civilian picked off the street and put in a uniform and pinned two stars on him? Granted the president doesn't (in theory) make tactical decisions, nor deploy divisions in the field....but I can't help but think that someone who has at least seen some service and maybe some combat would be a president who was more "involved" (as in being aware of who should make military decisions, what is important in military missions, etc), and take the military angle of his presidency in a serious manner. but maybe I am wrong.

[Wildgoose]

All we have to do is look at smilin' Jimmy to see that 4 years of the US Naval Academy and time served as a naval officer didn't do squat except make him remembered in history as one of the most lamest Presidents this country ever had.

[Vandervahn]

I think military experience can more often be a hindrance than an asset for a president. The reason is that someone out of the military for 25, 30 or 40 years, just like someone who did not serve, may not have the immediate understanding necessary for contemporary military needs. But unlike the civilian who knows there is a lack of knowledge which has to be filled in by subject matter experts, the ex-military President might feel inclined to let his outdated military expertise influence his decisionmaking.

[Albatross]

Yes.

thread/

[FlintHillBilly]

I personally think its good to have some experience in the Armed Forces if you are CIC. Whether you saw action or you were just a grunt, you will have a better understanding of how things work and better respect for your decisions. Thats just my opinion.

[TheSteve]

Uh, maybe? Probably not? He's surrounded by people who have long, long military careers that heavily influence any decision he makes. Couldn't it also be said that President Bush might have had a better understanding the sacrifices made the average American in this country if he had been a community organizer?

The President does a lot of ****. There are literally tons of issues you could say the President should have a had a history in to be better at whatever it may be. But you can't do everything, you take certain routes in your life.

[LineDoggie]

Quick ANswer?
No

How many of our Presidents have had Military Service since say 1900?

Carter was a Submariner and he was the worst in history- F

LBJ was good domestically and horrific foriegn policy wise- D+

Ford, Mediocre at best, a caretaker- C-

Nixon Good Foreign policy wise, bad domestically C-

JFK gets a mostly pass since he became a 10 ring for Lee Harvey- Incomplete

Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best of the bunch foreign policy and domestic policy considered. A+

Truman terrible with his naked attempt to fcuk the Marines over for petty reasons, but had the balls to use the Bomb to end the war, so a B+

Ike was a 5 Star and was mediocre , even setting up JFK on the road to failure (Bay of Pigs) though JFK bears the brunt for dithering and second guessing. C-

Wont even go into Reagan, Bush 41 or 43 as the bile is to raw with some here.

I think it helps a President to understand the people your commanding and may order to their deaths, but it isnt a requiremnt to have served.

[Atlantic Friend]

What was Truman's conflict with the USMC about?

[DC5dude]

Quick ANswer?
No

How many of our Presidents have had Military Service since say 1900?

Carter was a Submariner and he was the worst in history- F

LBJ was good domestically and horrific foriegn policy wise- D+

Ford, Mediocre at best, a caretaker- C-

Nixon Good Foreign policy wise, bad domestically C-

JFK gets a mostly pass since he became a 10 ring for Lee Harvey- Incomplete

Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best of the bunch foreign policy and domestic policy considered. A+

Truman terrible with his naked attempt to fcuk the Marines over for petty reasons, but had the balls to use the Bomb to end the war, so a B+

Ike was a 5 Star and was mediocre , even setting up JFK on the road to failure (Bay of Pigs) though JFK bears the brunt for dithering and second guessing. C-

Wont even go into Reagan, Bush 41 or 43 as the bile is to raw with some here.

I think it helps a President to understand the people your commanding and may order to their deaths, but it isnt a requiremnt to have served.

I don't know WTF you're talking about, Reagan was the man.

[LineDoggie]

I like Reagan as well, but their is a faction here that thinks he is Beezlebub.

Trumans Beef with the Corps goes back to the AEF times

[West Texican]

Military service can make you a better person but more often it makes you a different person. Whether that "person" is better or worse is relative. I feel safe to say that if President Obama had served he would not be exactly the person he is today, maybe not even president or even contemplating it. He might have wound up an MP.net moderator. This is getting close to Einstein's Twin Paradox ....and another infraction.

[commanding]

All we have to do is look at smilin' Jimmy to see that 4 years of the US Naval Academy and time served as a naval officer didn't do squat except make him remembered in history as one of the most lamest Presidents this country ever had.


touché ..point well taken!

[commanding]

I think military experience can more often be a hindrance than an asset for a president. The reason is that someone out of the military for 25, 30 or 40 years, just like someone who did not serve, may not have the immediate understanding necessary for contemporary military needs. But unlike the civilian who knows there is a lack of knowledge which has to be filled in by subject matter experts, the ex-military President might feel inclined to let his outdated military expertise influence his decisionmaking.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe that any pres. that is both a veteran AND a reasonably intelligent/sane person, will know his own military experience is outdated...but the experience he had will give him a better knowledge of the gravitas when sending people in harms way, and also know that the military commanders know better than him what is needed, what tactics, deployments etc to use.

[commanding]

Uh, maybe? Probably not? He's surrounded by people who have long, long military careers that heavily influence any decision he makes..
On his cabinet? who?



Couldn't it also be said that President Bush might have had a better understanding the sacrifices made the average American in this country if he had been a community organizer?
:bash: no!



The President does a lot of ****. There are literally tons of issues you could say the President should have a had a history in to be better at whatever it may be. But you can't do everything, you take certain routes in your life
But is there a single issue the president does that is more important than commanding the military/ preserving this nation?

[California Joe]

People who join the military have different mindsets, there are the kids that want to improve themselves and their lot in life but don't see college as the way to do it, there are the kids that are studs in high school that go to the service academies, there are the local f*ck ups with no other options that are looking for a way to get the local sherriff off their backs, there are the flat out patriots that would join rather than take a pro football contract, there are the Democrats and Republicans and Independents...

None of these particular groups have to be brain surgeon level smart or have any great insight into being the POTUS. History hasn't shown that military service makes one a better President over those that didn't serve. And being military "friendly" due to prior service isn't exactly the best arbiter of whether or not it was successful.

Look at Colin Powell, largely thought of as a great Republican hope, due to his conduct of the first Gulf War and general likeability to the American public. As soon as he strayed from the party line he was eviscerated for doing so and all of his previous service was called into question.

[Hollis]

Kind of what CJ is staying. I think it more the person not some specific experience. This is one of those questions that can never be answered only speculated on. I think it would tell more of the poster attitudes than Obama.


Look at all the people who do serve, some come out hating the military, some love it, some are just happy to be out. I don't think it is a issue whether a person served or not to be POTUS.


We could get petty about serving, then what about which Branch, what job, the sharp end of the spear of a cool air condition remote control base in Nevada, flying UAVs in hostile country, or a any other of the military jobs that are no different than civilian jobs.

[gaijinsamurai]

What was Truman's conflict with the USMC about?

He tried to disband the Marine Corps.

As Linedoggie pointed out, Truman's bias against the USMC was probably a result of WWI. From what I've heard/read, a lot of Army soldiers were jealous, with some justification, of the Marine's ability to get a lot more of the limelight during the war.



In general, I think military service does most people good, not just politicians. I've known quite a few people in my professional life who could have benefitted from a few years in the military.

As far as whether it helps someone be a better president, it couldn't hurt. But again, like Linedoggie pointed out, the track records of those who served aren't exactly stellar.

I can see how being a career military person might actually be a hinderance. Especially if one is used to being able to issue directives and not be questioned.

[California Joe]

I look at it like this, in a perfect world, a Veteran that became President would immediately take care of Vets in this country. Great hospitals, better pay, families taken care of, their sacrifice recognized significantly, "show me the money". This, in my experience, has yet to happen. John McCain wanted to make massive cuts in defense procurement, if you were a conspiracy theorist that might lead you to believe he had to lose, so a naive President could be convinced of the validity of certain programs...W was a marginal veteran at best, even if you give him credit for having the skills to fly a jet, which I do. **** Cheney was a 5 deferrment coward when it came to Vietnam, and yet he is one of the major proponents for the wars we are still fighting, they're 2 of the biggest hawks in recent memory. Those are not disparaging comments but facts.

So what's the point? The military is the big stick that politicians use to enforce their will. It always will be. Doesn't mean it's appreciated when the shooting stops and the nightmares come....

[TheSteve]

On his cabinet? who?
Yes, Presidents only consult with their cabinet, no one else. Come on man, what year is it? Anyone the president needs or wants to talk to is a few keystrokes away.

:bash: no!
I don't agree or disagree with the idea, just turn your question around. :)



But is there a single issue the president does that is more important than commanding the military/ preserving this nation?
There is a lot more to preserving this nation than just military defense. Obviously someone who has had a military career probably has good leadership skills, no doubt. But similar attributes can be acquired other ways.

[commanding]

Look at Colin Powell, largely thought of as a great Republican hope, due to his conduct of the first Gulf War and general likeability to the American public. As soon as he strayed from the party line he was eviscerated for doing so and all of his previous service was called into question.

Yes, I think Colin Powell is a great example, for me, to show that a guy who is by all accounts a great human being, likely would be a wonderful guy to be best buds with, have as a neighbor....and he carrieds a great record of both military service and public service....but I disagree with some of his stances on various things, gun control for one. So I would likely never vote for the man on that account. But a great person and unblemished military record. I don't know if you can say he was eviscerated, that seems a bit strong.

[JKD]

On his cabinet? who?


Off the top of my head I don't know if there are any others but his national security advisor springs to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones

[commanding]

......, they're 2 of the biggest hawks in recent memory. Those are not disparaging comments but facts.

So what's the point? The military is the big stick that politicians use to enforce their will. It always will be. Doesn't mean it's appreciated when the shooting stops and the nightmares come....

I don't know that being a hawk is what i am getting at. To me a perfect world POTUS, is one that allows the military to do it's job, gives it the material and support it needs, and oh yes...only sends in the military when national security is at stake (like he had four sons in the military with combat infantryman as their MOS).

a really old hair-brained thing I always think of when we are talking about sending in the military to some other country, is a thing someone once suggested that (and I know this is stupid but it makes a point) the "launch codes" for the nuclear missles should be sewn up in one of the presidents aides chest, and the only way for him to get the launch codes is to cut them out with a large knife...thus impressing on him the solemness of the decision to launch nuclear missles.

[commanding]

Off the top of my head I don't know if there are any others but his national security advisor springs to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones
he is a good one for sure, but one guy doesn't exactly "surround" the president with ex military advisors. think it takes more than one to surround.:)

[JKD]

he is a good one for sure, but one guy doesn't exactly "surround" the president with ex military advisors. think it takes more than one to surround.:)

True. There is also Robert Gates who was an Air Force officer. Eric Shinseki is Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Still not "surrounded" but does he really need a veteran as Secretary of Agriculture

[HollywoodMarine]

He tried to disband the Marine Corps.

As Linedoggie pointed out, Truman's bias against the USMC was probably a result of WWI. From what I've heard/read, a lot of Army soldiers were jealous, with some justification, of the Marine's ability to get a lot more of the limelight during the war.
Thank God for the "National Security Act of 1947!" So to hell with those arrogant, pompous Turds for their jealousy and biased attitudes towards my Marine Corps. I have mixed feelings about a prior service C-in-C. Hopefully somewhere out in A-stan or Iraq is a war fighter who will someday be a great Commander-in-Chief.

There is also Robert Gates who was an Air Force officer. Eric Shinseki is Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Those two Turds are walking brain farts!

[TheSteve]

Those two Turds are walking brain farts!
Is that sarcasm?

[budgie]

Would Pres. Obama be a "better" commander in chief, had he served in the military during his life? I realize you don't have to be a cook to know how to boil an egg, but what do you think about his understanding of the sacrifices made by our military, and the need for additional combat troops in A. as well as other military matters?


He'd probably 'sympathetic' to the military establishment and more popular among the troops. However whether that experience would make him a better CinC that's a tough one. It's not like he needs to make battlefield decisions. Shouldn't the President normally defer to his Pentagon and Joint chief on how to run a war; handling only the political side of things himself?

Besides just having served a few years when he was younger would probably make little difference: a lot of politicians have. They tend not to be former supreme commanders like Ike, who, if they enter politics at all, do so after many decades of service and reaching the top.

Far more valuable when it comes to overseeing the affairs of the armed forces would be the kind of experience McCain has: Decades on the armed services committee and a solid understanding of the capabilities and assets of the military (not to mention the inner workings of the Pentagon) coupled with his own tour of duty and hardships as a young officer.

[LineDoggie]

Is that sarcasm?2 words

Black Beret

nuff said

[HollywoodMarine]

2 words

Black Beret

nuff said
Spot on Linedoggie!

As for Gates, all I can say is "Sgt. Rafael Peralta."

[Curtis E. Bear]

Are you talking about Obama and his specific polices in regards to the military and whether or not they would be different if he had served? Or are you asking a general question about all presidents and military service? Only asking because the initial question you posed and the subsequent replies seem to imply that the focus has shifted.

[Rakki]

While the President may defer to the SecDef and DoD.... he does need to make a judgment call sometimes. Bush's replacing of Rumsfeld with Gates and putting Petraeus in charge of the Iraq theater is one such example where a weak link in the chain of command had to be replaced.

As for Obama's performance as CIC, so far, militarily, he has been O-K, doing a Bush-esque switch of the command mindset in Afghanistan by bringing someone considered more insurgency-saavy.

In the arena of grand geopolitics, the jury's still out....

[commanding]

Are you talking about Obama and his specific polices in regards to the military and whether or not they would be different if he had served? Or are you asking a general question about all presidents and military service? Only asking because the initial question you posed and the subsequent replies seem to imply that the focus has shifted.
I am really asking both. Life is a learning curve for all of us, and right now, we have a President who has never worn the military uniform. We also have a president who is "saddled" with a war unlike anyother we have ever had (isn't that always the case?).
My concern is for the military personal, and that we kill or capture those responsible of Sept. 11th 2001.

Every president walks into the job knowing he must deal with the problems left to him/her by the previous administrations, no matter what they are, and he walks into this voluntarily and knowingly. (god knows why)

It really is a fairly simple question, but with a complex set of ifs and buts attached to it and maybe no clear answer. Just discussing.

[seraosha]

I weigh military service very heavily in a canidates favor when considering whom to vote for, compared to someone with no military experience.

[Geezah]

Couldn't it also be said that President Bush might have had a better understanding the sacrifices made the average American in this country if he had been a community organizer?

Now that is some funny sh!te right there.

So just because that's all Obama has up his sleeves, it's now a way to measure someones achievements.
A community organiser don't do sh!te.
http://www.southyorkshireentertainment.com/images/patsy.jpg

[TheBelgian]

I feel the best president is one that is well rounded. Military service is a plus, but working with underprivilleged people, experience with the legal system or the financial system are also important. A president has to wear many hats, not just the CIC one. To me it would be better if he had a varried background, with some military service included, rather than being an expert in any one field. No matter what, the president will always be surrounded by experts in all necessary fields. A good president is one who can take all these expert opinions and weigh them against eachother neutrally before making the best descision for the nation.

[Kaplanr]

Now that is some funny sh!te right there.

So just because that's all Obama has up his sleeves, it's now a way to measure someones achievements.
A community organiser don't do sh!te.

Largely irrelevant actually. Problem is, not all military service is the same. With all due respect to Reagan and LBJ, they didn't hold a candle to JFK, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. in their WWII service. Ike and Grant served at an entirely different level, and while i have no argument with TR's bravery, he didn't serve in the army. He raised a volunteer unit and outfitted them, but you can't really say he shared in the military life of the day.

I think it makes you a more mature individual, perhaps more self-confident, though not always outside the military setting, but I'm not convinced it makes for a better president.

[Gus]

It's not so much about having served in the military makes a person a better CiC, I think the answer is a person who has done ANYTHING in his life beside hold some elected office, or worked for people holding an elected office, since graduating college makes a better president.

In my opinion the least qualified people to hold any elected office are professional politicians.

[SilentType]

I think he would be a better CIC, because it would have given some additional perspective on national security and foreign policy that he clearly lacks.

He's so domestic focused in his agenda I think he's really lost in the woods when it comes to national security. I think his liberal background and ideology does give him some pause and a slight caution/mistrust about the military. You see the liberals like to think of President Johnson as just some poor dumb SOB who got conned by the evil military into Vietnam. They preach and preach that Kennedy would have never escalated the war. :roll:

So with Obama's sole experience with the military prior to being President coming from what he was taught at his Ivy League schools I think he's listening more to Crazy Joe Biden than to Jones, Petreaus, and McChrystal.

In short, YES, not because a CIC needs to have military service in past, but because the man who is Obama would be MUCH different in mindset if he had it. Then again, he might not have been exactly the "Change and Hope" person he is today had he had it and not President.

Really wish he had someone who wasn't military (so he would listen to them) with at least a strategic mindset in a position like Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton for SOS was a real, REAL bad call.

[Curtis E. Bear]

I am really asking both. Life is a learning curve for all of us, and right now, we have a President who has never worn the military uniform. We also have a president who is "saddled" with a war unlike anyother we have ever had (isn't that always the case?).
My concern is for the military personal, and that we kill or capture those responsible of Sept. 11th 2001.

Every president walks into the job knowing he must deal with the problems left to him/her by the previous administrations, no matter what they are, and he walks into this voluntarily and knowingly. (god knows why)

It really is a fairly simple question, but with a complex set of ifs and buts attached to it and maybe no clear answer. Just discussing.

Then could one not argue that any President might be a better CIC if they had a law degree (seeing as they make law) or have worked in foreign policy before? In all honesty, I think a background in law in much more beneficial to the entire population than a background in the military. Doesn't the president have a bunch of Generals and what not to advise him on such matters (you know, like they show in the movies?)

[Gman992]

BTW...Reagan had a perforated ear-drum, making him ineligible to serve. And GWB volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down because he didn't have enough experience. Just ask Dan Rather. On the other hand, Bill Clinton fought and won a war without any US military casualities.