Nuns and brain surgery

[maseman]

Would you let someone operate on you who does not have a medical license? Would you want the person leading worship in your church to have never had any formal liturgical training? Would you allow a person to teach your children in a school with absolutely NO teaching experience or training? How about someone pilot your aircraft who has only a few hours of flight time?

These of course are rhetorical questions designed to launch my point to why then do we allow a President who has no formal military training to be the final "decider" to stay the course in Iraq?

I never served in the military and for that reason (among a million others) I would deem myself not fit to be the Commander in Chief. I am sorry, but I truly believe to hold the highest office in the land one must serve at least two years in one of the 4 branches of military. Preferably that person served even more years then two and had some military combat experience.

I am not nuts enough to say that someone who has served would be a great president, but I think anyone who served would at least respect and appreciate the brass in command's decisions and recommendations enough to make a military operation successful.

So, would you allow a person who joined the National Guard by recommendation from their CIA father and barely showed up for duty to lead our troops in combat? Or would you allow a VP who had FIVE deferments to run the war operation? I think not.

[fleabert]

1. slippery slope, that requirement. It would have taken Clinton off the table...

i think it has more to do with intelligence and the ability to surround oneself with qualified advisors.

[maseman]

4. I agree...to a point.

Clinton didn't have the military experience and he was intelligent. But if we go back through history was Clinton an exception to that rule?

I am not saying a Constitutional requirement that someone has military experience, but a social responsibility to have some military experience. A person with no children could be a wonderful child development professor and write dozens of well researched books. But no research prepares you for your wife 9cm dilated ready to fucking pull your heart out for doing this to her or the alike with child bearing. Some things you just have to experience for yourself to truly understand and appreciate.

[originalpckelly]

7. There should be a training program and test for Presidential candidates...

Like the Civil Service exam, but for Presidents.

If you think about it, a post man has to take the civil service, but the President does not. Everyone in our government should be qualified to do their jobs.

[Virginia Dare]

2. But we did, and what did we get for it?

we still don't know the complete answer to that question. :scared:

[MADem]

3. Civilian control of the military is a cornerstone of our Republic.

Otherwise, we end up like Turkey. Anytime the military doesn't like the government over there, they just do a little coup-ing and take over for a time...ya wake up, and some General is soothing your ass over your morning coffee, bread, cheese and tomato. He'll tell you not to worry, this is just a little glitch, and you'll get your government back after a short period of 'stabilization' during which they get rid of any troublemakers and repopulate the political landscape with people more to their liking.

Fuck that.

I did serve in the military, and let me tell you, service ALONE is not sufficient. JUDGMENT is what's needed. Clinton, who never served, had it, the Dunce, who hid out in the Guard, didn't.

[maseman]

6. I never said service alone

is what we need as a requirement. Of course judgment is needed. But some military experience would significantly help shape an individual's well roundedness especially when the biggest part of our budget goes to military spending along with the vital role the military plays in protecting our country and others.

[MADem]

8. Served--Bush Poppy, Bush Baby, Nixon

Didn't serve: Clinton, FDR.

Military experience is NO guarantee. It's as good as a coin flip.

About the only thing that applies down the years is the chain-of-command issues, and some (not all) elements of the "good order and discipline" rubrics.

The military changes every ten years or so. You talk to people who served in the sixties, and it's a different experience from those who served in the late seventies. Those people would not recognize Clinton's military--a totally different kettle of fish. And now, BushCo have created something that certainly IS a "thing"--and not a good one, either. I pity them, he's raked them over the coals, strung them out, peppered them with low quality assets, forced the reserves to damn near switch roles with the active forces, and demoralized a whole shitload of folks who joined up for genuinely patriotic reasons. He's decimated our forces.

As for Presidential military geniuses, you frequently have the problem where some sumbitch that left service as an E-6 or 0-3 all of a sudden thinks they don't need the War College studies, don't need the briefings by the flag/general officers, and decides to go all PATTON on us. LBJ, who had rather nominal military service, did that shit, and look at how dreadfully he managed his end of Vietnam--he actually got so far down in the weeds that he was managing tactical as well as strategic decisions, down to specific bombing runs. That sucks. 'No service Cheney' and his pal the former Navy flyer Rumsfeld did the same shit, telling guys like Rick Shinseki that they had their heads up their asses when they thought three hundred fifty thousand troops was a good starting number.

I've had the pleasure of working with many civilians (Clinton appointees) with no prior service. You pick smart people, who listen, who learn, who ask questions, and use their own good judgment based on their knowledge, their research and their gut, and you don't go wrong. Truly.

[maseman]

12. Your post

Really helped put some clarity on my thinking. FDR being the best example. I do think that Bush Sr. military experience is one reason he got the hell out of Iraq when he did without going after Hussein. I think he knew deep down there was no way to really change things over there and that without Saddam the country of Iraq would be in shambles as it is now.

I look at that difference between Sr and Jr as someone at least who worked in the military establishment versus someone who joined but didn't show up for the establishment.

Clinton didn't serve but Gore did. At least he may have had some influence with Clinton regarding the military.

[MADem]

13. Gore didn't go near Clinton on foreign policy, by and large. He was the domestic go-to guy

and was briefed either concurrently when the decisions went down, or after the fact. And Clinton was no fool. He delegated heavily. He made POLICY decisions, but he left it to Bill Cohen and his crew to determine the best way to execute. He did take advice, but he didn't get down in the weeds at all. He had some real BRAINS on the JCS back then, not wussy little yes men like Peter Pace. His Chairman was very capable, but his Vice Chair at the time was not just 'smart' he was a damned genius--a scary-smart genius who really knew how to look fifty moves forward and who also had some incredible 21st Century battlefield/battlespace ideas (many of them you see in place today).

What stopped Poppy from going into Iraq wasn't his WW2 Navy experience as a young boy (he was just a teenaged flyer, not a leader of large groups of personnel or a manager of vast amounts of equipment, save the one plane he dumped into the drink, killing his crew), it was an Army general, his own CJCS whose task it is to advise both the President and the SECDEF, by the name of Colin Powell. Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force made sense then and makes sense now. Poppy didn't want to expend the manpower, first, because he really didn't HAVE it owing to the drawdown that his SECDEF, a guy named CHENEY, had already started, and his reserves were NOT the same force they are today. Back then the reserves were far less ready, poorly equipped, and disorganized. They didn't even have JCS representation back then. He also didn't want to get bogged down with warfighting. Remember, the Republican Guard were still largely intact after that Kuwait debacle, and they had a fearsome, though maybe inflated, reputation. You don't risk that kind of a throw down in a re-election year, ya just don't.

I believe Bush Sr. would have made the very same decisions even if he'd served in nothing more than the Sea Scouts.

I realize you are invested in your thesis that military service helps Presidents do a better job, but I don't buy it, and I've got the military experience to counter the argument. Military experience doesn't always translate to skillsets in the plans/policy departments, or the execution phase of operations. In fact, often as not it doesn't. It might give one a bit of empathy for the poor bastards slogging out there in the sandbox, but that only applies if one has happened to serve in a sandbox or other hellhole. Someone with military service in the party-hearty eighties at safe stateside or posh overseas duty stations who weren't touched by say, the Marine Barracks, or Libya, or Grenada or the USO/nightclub bombings had a very different military experience than those who were shovelling up remains of people blown to bits or steaming like a madmen to be 'on station' just-in-case.

I do think that military service by a president provides some odd but completely UNEARNED comfort to the population, who mistakenly believe it does make a difference. And it provides people a fact to point to if the (former military) President makes a good decision, or the (non prior service) President makes a bad one. It's the "AH HA!" thing they can point to, but the reality is it's the intelligence of the individual and the quality of the decision-maker's choices that contribute to success or failure, not the fact that they went through boot camp forty years ago and did a couple of vaguely remembered tours of duty.

[maseman]

16. I think you just proved what I was saying

My point in this thread is that a person who is put in charge of running the military should have at least some experience so they know how it operates internally.

You said: "I realize you are invested in your thesis that military service helps Presidents do a better job, but I don't buy it, and I've got the military experience to counter the argument."

You said you have military experience to counter my argument. In other words, you know more about what you are talking about then I do because you served in the military. I would agree that you do know more about this topic because of your service. You have a much deeper knowledge and understanding then I becuase of your time in the military. And I think a President who is commander in chief of the military should at least have some knowledge, like yourself, of the inner workings and first-hand experience in how the military operates.

[MADem]

17. What I'm trying to tell you is that, because of MY military experience, I can assure you that HAVING

it is NOT a magic bullet. It does NOT give anyone special powers of empathy or perception, or even a tactical or strategic skillset that is of greater advantage. Those things are learned in War College, sure, but not everyone goes to War College or to NDI, for that matter. It's a field grade and up opportunity in the present forces. Most don't get that exposure.

What's needed, really, is BRAINS. Intelligence, empathy, perception, and the ability to read people and situations. I knew an old granny who had those talents and never served a day in the service, yet she was as sharp as Ike when it came to developing a strategic approach to ANYTHING, be it cooking a turkey or finding a way to put way too many kids through college with no money.

Often, the very fact of military service can work AGAINST a President, because the uncomplicated, unknowing public gives them more credit than they've earned in the 'military knowledge' department. They go into any planning session with their military leaders prepared to do battle and slap down recommendations, rather than listen with an open mind and ask questions, and come to mutually agreeable positions. This is what the Monkey is dealing with nowadays...between Rummy's orders to the generals not to deliver bad news or ask for more troops, and Monkey's unwillingness to ASK questions, we've found ourselves in a quagmire created by two asshats who both served, albeit marginally, in uniform.

If Madeleine Albright (who never served a day) were making the decisions, I'd feel MUCH more comfortable, frankly.

[Turbineguy]

5. There is no law

that would have kept idiots from voting for Bush.

[cap]

9. most of our presidents have never had military experience.

Since there is no draft, you would be selecting presidents only from a very narrow segment of American society -- where the officers tend to be conservative and Republican.

[Book Lover]

10. For the same reason hospital administrators are neither doctors nor nurses...

The commander in chief of the armed forces needs to know how and when to use the military for political ends (either threat of or actual use). The generals have to know how to deploy the troops. The two tasks are different.

And I would like to point out that the chief executive of one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government does not hold "the highest office in the land," as there is no such thing.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

Presidents who are former military don't go into wars lightly

Georgie was protecting Houston from those invading Commies, from his post at Ellington Field!
(sarcasm)

Georgie knows as much about military service as Mother Theresa knew about helping sick people with medical knowledge and pain relief (before you flame me check out Christopher Hitchens' book about her friendships with Charles Keating, the Duvaliers, etc.)

Eisenhower said "The US has no business in a land war in Southeast Asia".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

11. Presidents who are former military don't go into wars lightly

Georgie was protecting Houston from those invading Commies, from his post at Ellington Field!
(sarcasm)

Georgie knows as much about military service as Mother Theresa knew about helping sick people with medical knowledge and pain relief (before you flame me check out Christopher Hitchens' book about her friendships with Charles Keating, the Duvaliers, etc.)

Eisenhower said "The US has no business in a land war in Southeast Asia".

[MADem]

15. JFK, LBJ and NIXON--the three horsemen of Vietnam--all served in the Navy.

As did Poppy Bush. All of these former military men tripped the war fantastic without too much concern.

I still aver that it makes no difference, beyond impressing the (bulk of whom have NOT served) population, by and large.

Eisenhower was a different breed of cat--he was not a four star general, he was a FIVE star general. We don't have those nowadays, because we aren't "at war" in any official sense (that failed police action/terrorist hunt in Iraq and the Stan not withstanding). Eisenhower didn't just do a specialized military job, or even run an installation, a regional command, or hold sway over a swathe of geography in a designated area, he was the doggone SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER. He held all the marbles--he was King of the War. No general since Ike has had that degree, depth or breadth of experience, authority, and absolute power. He handled it well, but I don't know if I'd trust others to be as thoughtful with clout as he was.

[wuushew]

14. McKinnely was a vet and an insane imperialist

The Spanish-American War was almost as bad as Iraq.