Military perspective mostly AWOL in 2008 race

With U.S. forces fighting on multiple fronts, shouldn’t U.S. leadership be drawing more heavily upon military experience? Yet, as Associated Press reports, the only top-tier presidential candidate for 2008 with a military record is Sen. John McCain, whose service in Vietnam and long captivity in an enemy prison are well-known. Part of this is generational, as the dominance of World War II veterans in national politics ends and a post-Vietnam draft group of leaders (Barack Obama) emerges. But many among the candidates received deferments during Vietnam, for school, jobs, medical problems or missionary work (Mitt Romney).
Posted by Rhonda Holman

5 Comments

  1. Republican
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 1:24 am | Permalink

    The way our government is made, the military equation shouldn’t enter in to the decision of deciding who is President.

    One of the first things one learns in Professional Military Education is the reason for Civilian leadership.

    The question to me is, who can best take advice from their military advisers and counterbalance that with advice from their Secretary of State along with other departments.

    Knowing how to affix a battle plan is in my mind, not a requirement to become President.

  2. Ken
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    True — you don’t necessarily have to have military experience to be a good president — but it certainly can give you a better perspective into soldiers and their families lives — a better feel for thier “quality of life issues” like medical facilities (think Walter Reed and the discrepancies between DoD and VA policies / practices,) a better understanding of the military mind set and their “Doctrines”.

    Military PME schools spend very little time (less than 1% of curriculum) on discussions of reasons for civilian leadership, and not usually “one of the first things” they are taught. Those discussions usually come after in depth studies of doctrine, leadership, strategy, resource management and equipment.

    Most military personnel are not trained to affix a battle plan — PME for Field Grade Officers (or soon to be Field Grade Officers in the 6-10 year time in service period) begans the intense round of studies to develop battle plans and development of senior leadership skills, until then most leadership and management training address needs and plans for small unit missions and operations not large scale battle plans.

    Bring back the draft — let everyone get a taste.

  3. Kev
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    Military expericence is helpful but not necessary to be in a position of leadership and responsibility. It helps if you have some experience with the military if you are going to lead it as President but if you have not, it is even more important that you appoint leaders that do. Great leaders do not have to be smart. They just have to be smart enough to surround themselves with people who are smart.

  4. XXX
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    I think being shot at lends perspective. Having been “shot at” sure gives me a different viewpoint about war and what constitutes a good reason to start one. Whether a candidate is a vet or not would influence my vote.

  5. Joe Williams
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    If a Democrat gets elected to office and with a Democrat Congress, will they reinstitute the Military Draft?

    I know they’ve been talking about it and proposing bills for it.

    Could be a possibility.