Gold One:
You probably know how I feel about the Military. Everytime I see these warmongers, I think of Planet of the Apes and the remarkable correlations!
Somehow though, I agree with Piffka about the CommanderInCheif having a taste of the military, just for the exposure. Go figure ...
Anon
Au -- I'm glad that not everyone agreed with me. It would make me wonder if I got up on the right side of bed... whether this were a parallel universe... etc. Thank you. All is right with the world, again.
I'd side with au1929 on the military requirement for President. It seems a bit foolish to force people to consider whether or not they may want to make a run for the Presidency 40 years down the road when they are 18-22.
Why not? People are currently groomed for the presidency at that age now. Anyway, if there were a universal draft, the question would hardly come up.
Anon
Although I believe anyone who can serve should serve in the military. That is why I favor the draft. . I can not justify a litmus test for President that would disqualify people who were not physically able to serve.
Oh, I see. Well, I'm sure there could be a separate provision for those who were blind, deaf, or physically incapacitated to serve. The ability of a president to physically handle the rigors of office is always a concern during elections.
After the Romans had thrown out the Tarquins, and set up their own government, they had two "kings"--elected Consuls who exercised the magesterial authority for a period of one year. The reason for two such magistrates was to prevent the entire civil and military power being reposed in a single individual, it was thought that this would prevent, or at least ameliorate the abuse of power, which is also the reason for a one year term. Additionally, except in times of great danger, one Consul would command the field army, while the other exercised the civil authority at home. In times of emergency, two consular armies might be formed, and the other Consul would take the field--the ordinary civil business would be conducted by those officials still in the city (all civil officials--praetor, aedile, quaestor, etc.--had military duties as well), under the supervision of the censors. In times of extreme emergency, or a "clear and present danger," a dictator would be appointed with absolute authority, his term to be the duration of the emergency, or until the return of one or more of the Consuls.
Such a system was actually very efficient, and worked quite well for the Romans for centuries. The abuse of power did arise from time to time, and was usually dealt with effectively, eventually. The system eventually failed, but i won't go into that here. I consider this information germaine to a discussion of whether or not the Prez and the almost-Prez need to have had military experience. All members of the class of the Patres in ancient Rome received military training, and all free, adult males were subject to military service. Those who would serve were chosen among the members of each tribe (a political unit for the purposes of voting and taxation), so that "conscription," as it were, was carried out within the community. However, although the theme has been popular in American history, and in the history of many other nations, there is not a good, direct correlation between the Roman Republic and the American Republic. It is by no means assured that every citizen will be required to perform military service. Additionally, the nature of the position of Commander in Chief in our contemporary world does not necessarily require the person exercising that authority to have military expertise--dog knows we spend a fortune as taxpayers to provide a military establishment which it is theorized will provide the necessary military expertise. To require prior military service of anyone who would stand for the office of Prez or almost-Prez would only be fair in a system which also requires universal military service--and there is no good reason in our day to assume that such military service would prepare the office holder for military decisions in a manner superior to that of an office-holder without such experience. Although many of our Presidents have had military experience, only Washington and Grant ever held the supreme military power before standing for election. The crucial point about being commander in chief is taking the responsibility for decisions which will send men and women into harm's way. It is not a foregone conclusion that prior military service will have provided a better qualification to make such a decision. Truman had served in the First World War as an artillery officer--this meant little or nothing when he was faced with a choice between atomic attacks or a possibly very bloody amphibious assault on the Japanese home islands. Based on the history i've read in my life, i would say that the necessity of military experience in a chief magistrate became nugatory at the point where elaborate and effective hierarchical military staff systems were developed just before, during and after the French Revolution. The responsibility for these most heavy of decisions has not changed; the available military expertise necessary to carry out operations effectively has changed, and changed dramatically. I cannot agree that the aspirant to the highest offices needs to have had military experience.
Piffka
Add dumb to your list.
There are many disqualifies to military service other than being blind and deaf. However, I wonder if blind and deaf wouldn't be an asset to the presidency
Au, that reminds me of a saying of which i am fond: "In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man will be king."
If I read that correctly, Setanta says "No."
Shared service, shared risk. I think the military experience gives this hypothetical president a glimmer of who the troops really are, who he or she is assigning to bloody combat, and at the same time gives those troops and their officers a little more reason to trust in him.
That was the big stumbling block for Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. The main reason that W. has enjoyed relative popularity with the military is he promised them an increase in pay. It didn't have anything to do with his experience protecting Texas from Oklahoma.
Au -- I didn't want to get into the definition of "Dumb." But you are right! Think how much a president would have to trust his aides if her or she were blind, deaf, or ... dumb.
Piffka - As someone who was in the military during the Clinton years I would disagree. Clinton himself wasn't the problem IMO. The larger problem was his Whitehouse staff who were all young, mostly anti-military and none of whom had ever served. The rank and file military members felt ignored by his Whitehouse and it wasn't totally unjustified. (for example, it is tradition for the C-in-C to send out Holiday greetings to the troops. Clintion sent them out AFTER the holidays twice while I was in. Nothing like being told "Merry Christmas" on Jan 9th..)
While I'm sure Bush promising a pay raise didn't hurt, Gore promised them one as well. I think most of them expected a Gore Administration would largely follow in the steps of Clinton and that Bush would pay more attention to them.
Yep, you were an Air Force Officer, right? So was my dad, my father-in-law and my brother. I still thrill to see those jets flying overhead, living as we do, within 25 miles of McChord.
Clinton's not providing Holiday greetings sounds unpleasant -- just goes to show, that if you've never been in the service, you just can't imagine how little things like that will matter.
They may not know whether they are aiming for the presidency in the 18-22 age group, fishin', but there are still some who would give up three or more years in service to their country for little pay and no thanks.
Actually, I am most reluctant to start tinkering around with the Constitution, but it is a thought to play around with.
I thought that involuntary servitude was outlawed years ago. No matter what, I am against the draft, and I don't have a son of draft age!
I DO think though, that the Commander in Chief should have been in the military at some time in his life
Here's what Cong. Rangel had to say today on the NY Times op ed page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/opinion/31RANG.html
Interesting how few (one) in congress have children who are enlisted at the moment!
Well, after reading almost all of the earlier posts, I have decided to chime in. I do not believe we need a strictly military draft. I do not believe a president with military service should be manditory.
I would be satisfied with an option for military or public service. I have practiced what I call selective pacifism in my life. I would have gone without a struggle to fight in WWII. I would have gone to jail before I would have fought in Vietnam. I am no coward. I served in the military in the 60s. Even considered reupping to go to 'Nam (it was a voluntary thing at the time; became mandatory just after I left active duty). But then I looked into the causes and nature of the war and ended mailing my draft card back from whence it came. That's another story. Military life is not the mark of a man. It should not be forced upon a free society.
A president can have military experience and still be a fool. Nothing will give such a man the intelligence to make decisions. A president has the military to do what they do best, after the president has weighed the options and done the political work.
Hi All:
I think the only way the draft can be done right is to have no exceptions, except for the severly disabled. Everyone else has to go, one way or the other, military, civil, fire, you call it. There are lots of things that can be done for this nation that don't include the military!! As a matter of fact, there are more things that need to be done which are civil oriented!
The timber companies are chomping at the bit to get at the forests in the name of clearing, which is nothing more than a facade for logging like crazy. I can't think of a better use for the civilian core than to keep the loggers our of our publically owned forests and clear them so they don't burn as they have in the last two years!!
Anon
Anon
I hate to disagree with Mr. Rangel but I must. I have heard him talk about his on Crossfire. I don't think there is any doubt that the bulk of those on the ground and in harms way are those from a lower to middle income background.
Most "rich" enlistees are officers and I don't think they are the ones whose bodies will be going in first. I understand his desire to even up the playing field but I can't agree with a draft.
It's hard to beleive that after the mess we went through in Vietnam that we are ready to do it all over again. Instead of gearing up for more war we should be focusing on how to prevent it.
btw- How do you get your text to change colors? I keep putting red but it doesn't change.
You're right Redheat... we should be focusing on how to prevent war... but if those in power don't have a personal interest in the bodies flung into the war machine, then how will we ever get them to stop studying war?
To get your text to change colors, bolding & sizes... you must be in the PostReply, or Preview, not Quick Reply (unless you are well versed in BBcode). Select the text to be changed and then make the change. There is a big how-to Topic on this. Check the forum index. Basically the text must come after a code that defines the color, or size or whatever and after the text, a similar code that turns it off. If this isn't precisely done, it won't work. Standard syntax rules.
