• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How will the military respond to president Hillary?

Men have to serve under women in all branches of the military. I don't see how this would be any different.
 
The military currently has women within the officer, NCO and warrant officer chain of commands, so reporting to a female CIC in and of itself shouldn't be a problem for the military.

However, if that woman is Hillary, well that is a whole other ball game.

So yes, I think the military would adapt well to a female CIC. In Hillary's case, it really depends where she sets her priorities...as the first lady, she did not have a very good reputation within the rank and file, and those criticisms could extend to how the military perceives her as the CIC.
 
Respond? They'll do their jobs honourably and follow each directive she gives them (that's not overly illegal), just like they've done for every President in history.

Will they like her? That's up to how she treats them.
 
The fact that they listen to, and don't turn and attack the current leader, leads me to believe that they'd be fine with any President.
 
We will follow the lawful orders given by our superiors and respect the President as Commander in Chief -- as we always have and always will.

That said, will we "like her," or hope that she wins the job? Well... I doubt you'll find many in the military with those feelings about Hillary.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The military currently has women within the officer, NCO and warrant officer chain of commands, so reporting to a female CIC in and of itself shouldn't be a problem for the military.

However, if that woman is Hillary, well that is a whole other ball game.

So yes, I think the military would adapt well to a female CIC. In Hillary's case, it really depends where she sets her priorities...as the first lady, she did not have a very good reputation within the rank and file, and those criticisms could extend to how the military perceives her as the CIC.
Click to expand...

Why did she not have a good reputation with the rank and file as first lady?
Did the first lady make policy regarding the military? I don't think so.

 
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The military currently has women within the officer, NCO and warrant officer chain of commands, so reporting to a female CIC in and of itself shouldn't be a problem for the military.

However, if that woman is Hillary, well that is a whole other ball game.

So yes, I think the military would adapt well to a female CIC. In Hillary's case, it really depends where she sets her priorities...as the first lady, she did not have a very good reputation within the rank and file, and those criticisms could extend to how the military perceives her as the CIC.
Click to expand...

Why did she not have a good reputation with the rank and file as first lady?
Did the first lady make policy regarding the military? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
She is associated with her husband who drew down the military strength.

 
She has pushed for more troops and better benefits so she won't be immediately disliked. And she is one tough customer and I think the military will respond to that well.
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
I am curious to how you think the military will respond when the commander-in-chief is a woman.
Click to expand...


They will serve the President of the United States regardless of what sex, race, or belief they are. That is just the way of the military. If you have never served you have missed out on some of the finest people you will ever meet.

Remember, this is a volunteer force and for the most part that makes it very exceptional. They are there to do a mission and predujices though they may exist in some are put aside for the mission, because in the end they take it as their obligation to between us and harms way.

and yes I served, 85-89 and some of the best people I ever met were there. It really does slant one's view of the middling problems that some people claim overwhelm them and yet these same people will slam people in uniform relentlessly.
 
Why did she not have a good reputation with the rank and file as first lady?
Did the first lady make policy regarding the military? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
No, but she did have a reputation for influencing her husband in certain policy and military decisions.

 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

She is associated with her husband who drew down the military strength.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, so did the elder President Bush - this was an inevitable byproduct of the end of the Cold War. I always felt (and I served under Clinton and GWB) that a lot of the resentment toward Clinton had more to do with the fact that he was a fairly unapologetic draft-dodger and didn't pretend to have knowledge of, or much fondness for, the military.

For my part, I think (and felt while on AD) our current President and Scty Cheney have used and abused our military in ways that show far less respect for the military than anything Clinton ever did.

I don't particularly like Hilary Clinton (actually I don't know anyone who particularly likes her, outside of New York), but I don't seriously question that she would make more responsible choices about her use of the military than President Bush has. That being said, I'm sure there would be great resistance in the military toward a President Hilary.
 
I think they will respond in a fashion similar to her husband. Moral will go down, enlistment will go down. And people with 4-8 years who were thinking of making a career out of it might change their mind.

I think a far more interesting question is how she might use the military.
There is an interesting phenomenon in how a leader who is viewed as strong reacts militarily compared to how one who is viewed as weak responds. (Hillary would most likely be considered weak, at least at first.)

When there is a crisis a leader who is viewed as being strong or hawkish does not have to take strong military action to prove their strength or willingness to use the military.
A leader who is viewed as being weak though often feels that they need to react in a strong manner, least they be seen as in fact being weak.

Think of it this way. Imagine a John McCain as President when a crisis breaks out. McCain sends a few carriers and talks about taking tough action against who ever the bad guy is. The bad guy sees this and thinks to themselves ?this guy is serious? and backs down.
Now imagine a John Kerry as President in the same case. Kerry sends in the carriers and talks tough, but the bad guy thinks ?this guy is a dove, he won?t take any action? which means that Kerry has to take action in order to make the bad guys believe he is serious.

I wish I could remember where I first read about this idea. But the idea of the theory is that a weak/dovish leader is far more likely than a strong/hawkish leader to use the military because the weak leader has to prove they are strong, while the strong leader does not.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Men have to serve under women in all branches of the military. I don't see how this would be any different.
Click to expand...

not to mention that women can be just as hardnose as men, one prime example is Margaret Thatcher.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
The same way they did to her husband of convenience...with contempt.
Click to expand...

Don't speak for everyone. I served 5 years in the Army on active duty, two years under the first Bush and three under Clinton and didn't have any problems with either one. I wasn't even political at the time and voted for Pero in 92.
 
I think the senior level military people will be thrilled to have someone other than GWB---who demanded they parrot the party line---and if you think for
yourself---or express an opinion---you are fired.

But a possible President Hillary Clinton has the ultimate control there---if she listens to their concerns--and supports many of their concerns--she will be well liked.
If not---she will make trouble for herself.---the military is the ultimate bureaucratic boondoggle---they know every paper shuffling trick in the book.
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
The fact that they listen to, and don't turn and attack the current leader, leads me to believe that they'd be fine with any President.
Click to expand...
😀

:beer:
 
Originally posted by: marincounty
I am curious to how you think the military will respond when the commander-in-chief is a woman.
Click to expand...

They will obey orders or lose their jobs. What do you expect a military coup?
 
The military will also likely have an image problem in 08---where once again the American people relied on the army's can do promises---and like in Vietnam---the army did not deliver.

I readily concede I am writing history before it happens---but the Iraq war is not going well---it least the occupation part of it---and its a giant unknown on what will happen next.

But in the Vietnam war the army ended up being perceived as an evil organization cynically chewing up human life for the glory of killing. Corporations supplying the war effort and army recruiters were hounded from college campuses. Returning soldiers did not get the respect or honor their faithful service should have earned them. Even the army did much soul searching. And some of that resulted in the Powell doctrine. And it took the better part of a few decades for the armed forces to rehabilitate its public image. And to great PR, our military did itself proud in Gulf war one.

But fairly or unfairly---the root cause of the failure in Vietnam was due to a set of Presidents asking the American military to solve what amounted to a political problem. While at the same time prohibiting them from invading North Vietnam itself with boots on the ground---because then China
would come in.

Now we have that same train wreck coming in Iraq. Our military solves the military problem in a weeks and can't make a bit of progress on the political problem of the occupation. In short we have leadership asking our military to do what armies cannot do. Its not hard to predict Iraq will be a huge campaign issue in 08 if Iraq is not resolved by then, and its also likely that the army will catch a good part of the blame with a resulting hit on its public image.

Any candidate in the 08 field will be under a pressure to join in on the military bashing. But if the winning candidate in the 08 field is smart, they will be wise to stress a political solution and absolve the military of the mis-placed blame. Any such candidate who reaches the exalted rank of commander and chief by refraining from military bashing will likely receive support from the military leadership---and any that do reach the rank of President by bashing the military will not be well received by the military---by that test its more likely to be an Obama rather than a Hillary.
 
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: ayabe
Men have to serve under women in all branches of the military. I don't see how this would be any different.
Click to expand...

not to mention that women can be just as hardnose as men, one prime example is Margaret Thatcher.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised this is even a question. A leader is a leader, regardless of their race or sex or age or anything else.

Other countries have managed fine with female leaders, I thought the US was supposed to be a shining beacon of democracy and rights. Why would a female president be an issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top