kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,209
- 36,176
- 136
Hmmm I wonder why you didn't mention GWB on that list... Proposal fail.
AWOLers are in a category of their own?
Hmmm I wonder why you didn't mention GWB on that list... Proposal fail.
Look at the ones that did
Carter
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Truman
These we are all, more or less, pretty good presidents, at least compared to the ones since Carter. We need less governors and senators and more millitary men.
They were all reserves
He wasn't nearly as bad as people make him out to be, and he deserves credit for appointing Paul Volcker to head the fed and then bearing the heat for Volcker's unpopular but ultimately successful interest rate policies.
That's good to hear, but then don't post Republican talking points attacking Carter - the current one going around.
41 saw combat in WWII.
Oh no, you are not one of those "Bush lost the election" conspiracists, are you? It is in the same group as we faked the moon landing and we used super thermite to take down the twin towers.
That's Romney to a 'T', and while I like Romney, I can't recall of the top of my head a case of a similar President to bolster that case. I want a President with executive experience (preferably a governor - a full term governor), extensive business experience, and a healthy understanding of and appreciation for both capitalism and freedom. I think though that the ability to clearly articulate a vision and persuade others to his or her way of thinking might be the very most important thing. That, or maybe a will of iron.Is this based on the Robert Heinlein claim that all other things being equal, a man with military service is a better man than one who did not serve? I thought that was true then but I'm not so sure now.
I actually think Western democracies need someone who's quite the opposite from a life history point of view: A technocrat with a solid understanding of how businesses and bureaucracies work. The Presidency appears to be more of a CEO role than that of a general; and in wartime you still need to control your sprawling government if nothing else than to tame the beast of logistics.
I think Carter was one of the worst Presidents post-war, but in his defense, at the time of the disastrous rescue attempt there was no unified SOCOM command, and the people in command knew little about the actual conditions and needs they would face. Planning was atrocious, and while it looks like even the simplest neophyte could have done a better job planning the mission, in reality the planners made a decent plan for an entirely different scenario than the one facing them. Remove the choppers' filters in Europe? Probably worth the damage. Remove the choppers' filters on a mission which involves landing in the desert? Not so much.The thing that really hurt him was the failed rescue mission of the embassy hostages in Iran.
President Obama learned from that lesson and insisted that the SEALs have a back up helicopter and sufficient numbers to fight their way to a safe pickup area if the mission failed. Remember at the last minute the CIA weren't as sure as they wanted to be that Bin Laden was in the compound.
Guardsmen are, at times, on active duty orders, but they are still not active duty members, any more than reservists called up for deployment are active duty members (they are not). In my experience in deployed settings, Guardsmen tend, other things being equal, to be the least fit and disciplined military members, though as members of the Reserve and Guard have increasingly been relied upon for deployment this has improved somewhat.
That's Romney to a 'T', and while I like Romney, I can't recall of the top of my head a case of a similar President to bolster that case. I want a President with executive experience (preferably a governor - a full term governor), extensive business experience, and a healthy understanding of and appreciation for both capitalism and freedom. I think though that the ability to clearly articulate a vision and persuade others to his or her way of thinking might be the very most important thing. That, or maybe a will of iron.
Look at the ones that did
Carter
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Truman
These we are all, more or less, pretty good presidents, at least compared to the ones since Carter. We need less governors and senators and more millitary men.
In my (fairly extensive) experience, Guardsmen and reservists are a much more rounded bunch of individuals, coming from all different backgrounds and skillsets, bringing those differing opinions and talents to the table when it comes time to conduct a mission. They often times have a geographical bond, some of them having known each other since childhood. It really pisses me off when the active duty troops look down at guardsmen and reservists, meanwhile they've been living in the highly socialized and coddled active duty lifestyle where pretty much everything you need is provided for you. Guardsmen/reservists have to worry about being a soldier as well as holding down a job, providing for their family, etc. There's nothing wrong with active duty, but the way they look down on part timers is really misguided and disrespectful.
Reagan through Obama learned from those mistakes, but even more the military learned from those mistakes. They put aside (somewhat anyway) their squabbling, established a unified SOCOM command, began running field exercises together. Reagan and his successors benefited from all that, so while I dislike Carter, we can't really blame that fiasco on him. It was a noble attempt that as a nation we were totally unprepared to attempt.
He does have a point. We basicly had a President that lost the popular vote. Reguardless of if you liked Bush or Gore, that's not Democracy. The Electoral College is outdated.
That used to be the case, but part of the G. W. Bush/Clinton force draw down was integrating the National Guard and Reserve components into our war plans. A Guardsman today is quite likely to be deployed into a combat situation; we simply can't fight a war without them. Guard components are accordingly also much better equipped than Vietnam-era units, although not quite up to active duty unit levels.
One counterbalancing factor I see in having a former active duty POTUS is the tendency to second guess the experts. Unless his or her experience is relatively recent and goes up to the Joint Chiefs level, a former active duty POTUS could not have enough experience to second guess the Chiefs militarily - but he or she might well think so, which would be a major problem. On the plus side, of course, anyone who progressed beyond junior officer would understand the options laid out, and their likely military results.
But I still think the problem with our exhausted military is much more our American priorities than Obama. We simply demand too much while giving too little, and far too much of what we do give is based on political considerations rather than true needs. Obama isn't willing to give up his own priorities to give the military what it truly needs, but neither is Congress or any serious Presidential candidate back to Reagan, who had and faced down a very significant military threat to our nation. I doubt that even Reagan would have expended much political capital building up our military with our most significant likely threat being Iran or some similar nation. Even if we had a former active duty POTUS who made the military his number one priority, I can't see him or her getting enough through Congress to be significantly better than Obama or Bush.