The reason is philosophical- the founders thought it was important that the military be headed by a civilian. The last thing they wanted, after a king, was a military government. So while at times we may wish a President was a modern day Hannibal or Alexander, a civilian leader can avail himself of the experience of warriors, but shouldn’t be constrained by their worldviews.
I don’t even see why it would matter. I would rather have someone in office who is more inclined to keep peace rather than engage in military conflict.
Well, first, its not my list. Second, as the list is not exhaustive, I would assume that the maker of the list left off the Democrats who didn’t serve as well as most of the Republicans who did to help sway others to their position.
It does not change the fact that those who are seen as being against the war have actually seen the horrors of war first hand, while those who send thousand half way around the world to die or be maimed, have not. The inferences arising from this are rather obvious.
If that’s your justification for thinking that military service should be a prerequisite to be President, I’d say that’s absurd. War may indeed be hell, but it’s an aquired taste for many.
Sure, here’s an example. Hitler was an actual combatant in WWI, an artillery man or infantry, can’t recall right now. He was actually decorated and by all accounts was an exceptional soldier. So by your reasoning he should have known better than anyone the horror of war, right? He’d be the last one who’d ever wage war again. Ooops.
I think Stalin was also an officer. Many of histories most ruthless leaders came from the military, from Roman times on forward. I think the glory and mayhem of combat & warfare may therefore be an aquired taste. Certainly success seems to be intoxicating.
Who do you think is more likely to lead a country into war as a leader: one who’s a pacifist Buddhist monk, for example, or an ex-general?
This is not a universal law we’re talking about. I’m saying that a man who has seen the horror of war first hand will be less likely to see casualties as just a statistical figure. War, in most cases for the US, is something that is not initiated, but something that is received. Another more realistic question would be; when shit hits the fan, as it does most times, who would would be most likely to know what to do? The Buddhist monk or the ex-general
Well, if the ex-general had any brains he’d probably defer a lot of the nuts & bolts to the current generals. The primary job of a US President is not to micromanage wars. A commander in chief should, in my mind, supply moral and strategic guidance, not on-the-ground daily tactical decisions. Unless he’s truly a Hannibal or Alexander he’ll probably not be as intimately familiar with the tactical tools and capabilities of the military as current officers are.
Another way to look at it is this: how many of those leaders we think of as truly the greatest in American history ever served in the military? Some, but not the great majority.
That analogy isn’t fair, because accepting ones circumstances is an inherent belief in Buddhism.
War for most cases in the U.S. is received as a result of their policies and coercion.
