"Military experience rare among '08 candidates" - Reuters

[Sparkly]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070625/pl_nm/usa_politics_military_dc
(Edited to add the link)

(I think this is by a different Andy Sullivan -?)

By Andy Sullivan Mon Jun 25, 9:05 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Though the next president will probably command soldiers in two separate wars, few of those hoping to win the job can say they've ever seen combat or even taken abuse from a drill sergeant.

(snip)

Between 1944 and 1992, military experience was seen as a must for presidents.

That ended when Democrat Bill Clinton, who never served in the military, defeated Republican President George H.W. Bush, a decorated World War II veteran. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, another World War II combat veteran.

Republican George W. Bush, who spent the Vietnam years on U.S. soil as a member of the Air National Guard, defeated two Democratic candidates who served in Vietnam, Al Gore and John Kerry.

The article seems to make pro and con arguments.

Pro, from Ohio Wesleyan University history professor Michael Flamm: "If no candidates in 2008 are running on or against their Vietnam records, perhaps we won't have to look at Iraq through the prism of Vietnam," he said. "Perhaps we will be able to look at the Iraq war as a new situation."

Con, from another professor: "Service in the military provides perspective on war, perspective on sacrifice," said University of Denver political-science professor Tom Knecht. "To the extent that we're losing that, that might be kind of a problem."

What are your thoughts, DUers?

[shain from kane]

1. There was the claim that B*sh is serving on the front lines every day. I wonder if he gets combat

pay.

[Ilsa]

5. Sure, don't all the troops get $400,000 a year in pay? The WH said

they get so much in benies that they don't need the 3.5% pay raise.

[TwilightGardener]

2. "Perhaps we won't have to look at Iraq through the prism of Vietnam"--

because, you know, learning from past mistakes is foolish. We should view Iraq in a historical vacuum. This guy TEACHES people?

[shain from kane]

7. These people are mad.

Brain Damage
(Waters) 3:50

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

The lunatic is in the hall.
The lunatics are in my hall.
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more.

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

The lunatic is in my head.
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

"I can't think of anything to say except...
I think it's marvelous! HaHaHa!"



Can anyone recognize the reference?

[TwilightGardener]

9. Pink Floyd! Takes me back to those laser shows when I was a teenager...

[shain from kane]

11. The prism on the cover reveals the madness within.

[niyad]

3. my thought is that serving in the military does NOT, in and of itself, qualify one for the

highest office in the land. (would certainly open the field to more candidates, wouldn't it?)

[HereSince1628]

4. Yeah, we've reached that time when Vietnam wasn't a finishing school

for career politicians now available to run for the Oval Office.

I see this as inevitable rather than something to be decried. Unfortunately, in about 2 presidential election cycles we'll be asking politicians where they were in Gulf War 1 and 2.

[MemphisTiger]

6. I think it's just the reality we live in now. During WWII

almost every able bodied man signed up, now that those vets are getting older and aren't running for office you'll see alot of candidates that didn't serve for whatever reason. The idea that the president needs to have war experience is laughable, Bill Clinton never served a day in the military and presided over a pretty good time in the history of this country.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I would prefer that candidates at least demonstrate a deep appreciation

for the sacrifices that veterans have made, and will make, in service to their country, even if they didn't serve themselves. This eliminates all chickenhawk Republican candidates (except McCain, of course) who insist on wasting troops in pointless war when they themselves have sought to protect their own heinies when Uncle Sam came a-knockin'.

[welshTerrier2]

10. the only MUST for Presidents seems to be ...

that they strongly support the military-industrial complex ... as long as they're willing to strangle the federal budget with military procurements and as long as they're willing to scare the hell out of the American people should any objections be raised, they remain on the "approved" list ... or have I misconstrued the question?

looked at in the narrow sense, one cannot assume that the mere participation in war awakens one to whether any given war is just or not just. wisdom does not necessarily follow from first hand observation any more than lack of wisdom follows from non-participation. understanding war, understanding the forces that push for war, and understanding how to lead those fighting a war does not at all require having participated in a war or even having served in the military.

experience may be the best teacher for certain tasks but it does not necessarily teach the best values. in seeking people to lead the nation, I would place my first emphasis on values. task competence is far more easily delegated.

[C_U_L8R]

12. Yeah but Fred Thompson pretended to be an Admiral

That must make him the most qualified. :sarcasm: