It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the President have Military Experience?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   


Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have never served in the military. Neither have Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal. And those are just the Republicans gearing up for a presidential campaign.

The same goes for the Democrats likely to seek their party’s nomination for president: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders aren’t veterans either.

But there are a few potential candidates that have: Republicans Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Jim Webb.


Source

This article is a few months old but I just ran across it tonight and thought it was an interesting read. Apparently, the only remaining presidential candidate to have military experience is Rick Perry, the rest have never served in the military. I find that really interesting.

Should a presidential candidate be required to have military experience? If they plan on being the head of the armed forces I personally believe they should have experience in the field. How can they claim to know what's best for the soldiers if they've never been in the field themselves? Should someone who has never worked out a day in their life be a personal trainer? How about someone who has never cooked, should they be creating recipes for a restaurants menu?

I think this goes to show that the candidates we have these days are soft, they've never had to get their hands dirty. Obama never had military experience either, does that have any bearing on his foreign policies? I think it's foolish to expect someone to know how to command the armed forces of our country when they've never had to be in the field themselves. They're too far removed to understand what happens in war.

I think the candidates we have remaining cannot empathize with the soldiers they plan on commanding, they could care less about them because they don't know what war is like. Commanding the armed forces is only one part of the job, but I think it's a pretty important part, probably the most important part.

What do you guys think? Should a president be required to have military experience if they plan on commanding soldiers?




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
NO!!!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: spav5

Thanks for clearing that up, you gave a well reasoned response.




At least you could elaborate on why they shouldn't. They'll be commanding our armed forces, why on Earth shouldn't they have military experience?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

While it couldn't hurt I guess, I don't think it should be a req.

There is much more to being president then knowing how to command a military.
Also to take the slippery slope route, think that is a great way to get a military controlled government.
Again, worst case fantasy scenario that still could happen.
edit on thFri, 18 Sep 2015 01:17:01 -0500America/Chicago920150180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What do you guys think? Should a president be required to have military experience if they plan on commanding soldiers?


Required? Absolutely not! The requirements for being president of the USA are laid out in the constitution (ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5).

If most citizens preferred that candidates had military experience than I suspect we'd get more presidential candidates that had military experience.


edit on 18-9-2015 by Elton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: spav5

Thanks for clearing that up, you gave a well reasoned response.




At least you could elaborate on why they shouldn't. They'll be commanding our armed forces, why on Earth shouldn't they have military experience?


Most of the military are males..females about 15%. Why not make president required to be male?

See? That notion is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Elton

Super PACS choose the candidates, not the public in my opinion. But yeah, I get where you're coming from. The Constitution lays out the requirements, but I still think it should be a factor. You never see a chef heading a scientific organization. That may not be the best example but you see my point.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

We should legislate to return to the lore-of-old.

If Senators & Presidents want to start Military Campaigns, It should be them and their over 18 year old relatives fighting ON the front line.

You would see absolutely no war and a lot more intelligent negotiations.

Divorcsing themselves from the death/carnage they create is the problem.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CitizenNum287119327

Absolutely. Back in the day the one issuing the commands was usually at the front lines fighting with their soldiers. It's easy to start a war when you're not the one fighting it.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: CitizenNum287119327

Absolutely. Back in the day the one issuing the commands was usually at the front lines fighting with their soldiers. It's easy to start a war when you're not the one fighting it.


But we don't live in a military junta. Our country isn't run by military rule, it's run by civilians. The POTUS always has a joint chief staff that combined has more military experience than any one man. Smart people listen to other smart and experienced people.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This post is probably going to be unpopular, so please think about it before attacking.

Honestly, I am not veteran. I came of age at the close of the Veitnam era, and the U.S. Military was reducing its numbers. So I had no real drive to serve. I do have several friends and relatives a little older than I, who did serve. These men are not the broken warriors you read about. But men of substance and honor as most vets are.

I do think we had a more stable, responsible and honorable society when the draft was in place. Military service was a kind of finishing school for young men back in my day. Young men were tought , citizen ship, responsibility, how to dress, how to give and take orders, how to take care of them selfs, as well as how and when to fight.

So yes, I do think we would have a better president if he had military experience. The current crop of politically correct, windbag candidates, scare the living hell out of me.

I feel that we are in the midst of the greatest leadership vacuum of my generation. In the U.S. We have real problems and we need serious leadership.

Ok, I have had my say, let the attacks begin.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Whether we're a military junta or not really depends on perspective in my opinion. Our president is Commander in Chief, one who issues commands to the armed forces. Our president follows the orders of those who are really in power, those behind the scenes, and the track record we have with getting into wars over the past century points toward those who run the country having militarily/war driven agendas. They forced their way into power and use the military as a way to get what they want. That, in my opinion, constitutes us as being a military junta in a certain light.

Maybe they give off the illusion that it's not a junta but I think it is personally. Things aren't always as they seem.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

The Vietnam War was predicated on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a proven false flag event to justify us going to war. I don't think we were any more stable, responsible, or honorable then than we are now to be honest. The draft shouldn't be in effect either, that's not giving people a choice. How can we claim to be a free nation if young men are forced into military service?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Nickn3

The Vietnam War was predicated on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a proven false flag event to justify us going to war. I don't think we were any more stable, responsible, or honorable then than we are now to be honest. The draft shouldn't be in effect either, that's not giving people a choice. How can we claim to be a free nation if young men are forced into military service?


Perhaps or perhaps not. I was just giving my opinion on why I think the President should have military experience. By me, a military man is much preferred over a prep school guy with no real life experiences.
edit on 18-9-2015 by Nickn3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Well, let's see.

If you ask that question, then you should ask the rest of them that go down the same rabbit hole.

Since he also makes decisions that affect parents ... should he have to be a parent, and a successful one at that.

Obviously he needs a degree in Economics and another in banking.

He needs to have experience in being poor and he needs experience at being rich and middle class as well.

If he needs military experience then obviously it must be experience with the Marines, the Army, Navy and Air Force. He should also have black ops training.

He also commands the NSA, CIA and such like, so he needs to be a former spy.

He should have proven skills in managing emergencies so some time in FEMA would count as required.

He needs degrees in Agriculture, Forestry and preserves.

To understand and run Reserves, he should have been raised as an Indian.

............

What he truly needs is to be humble and be able to listen to advice from the wealth of advisors that he has. POTUS humble, lol, never going to happen.

All of your later presidents had few of these things and just keep on messing up the once great country.

P



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Great post!

Agreed, you can't have one person with every conceivable life experience. Now I would prefer it if every president somehow had the life experience of everyone one of his voters, and a doctorate in every conceivable area of learning (and in every specialization) but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   
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).



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CitizenNum287119327




If Senators & Presidents want to start Military Campaigns, It should be them and their over 18 year old relatives fighting ON the front line.




Damn straight. If they want to start a war, let's see how gung ho they feel about it when their own kids are on the front lines.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Is it in the Constitution? There's your answer.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Altho not in the Constitution, you forget the folks who WROTE it for the most part had been in the militia so possibly like with many other articles hadn't conceived that future Presidents wouldn't have had personal experience in the military. It's all well an good to have advisors, but it would serve ANY president well to spend 2 weeks in boot camp for first hand experience in what's required, learn some compassion for his front line troops.

His "advisors" for the most part entered the service with college degrees and officers are treated much differently than grunts.

So YES!
I prefer someone running the country has had first hand military service. Coaching in Diplomacy, Foreign Policy etc couldn't hurt either. It's the same thing when a CEO has no idea how a company functions advocating directives that are non-functional in practice, the President SHOULD be cognizant on a more first hand level of how things actually work.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join