If we had a government that wasn't dominated by liars and fools, and the President had combat experience in the military, I'd be content with an SS system in which numbers were randomly assigned, like the system in effect during the VietNam war.
Or can you envision any system whereby the government (run by fools or wise men, it's an imperfect world) would not be entrusted with the duty to protect this nation?
Of course not.
And--and it's a big "and"--has to find a way whereby it militarily protects the United States?
Military protection is fine so long as it's a last resort. I prefer to improve relations with other countries by travel, trade, cultural exchanges, sporting events, the United Nations, etc. Such means are much less expensive than military options. The Republicans' failure to normalize U.S.relations with Cuba is the best counter-example I can think of.
Our enemy, Islamofascists, intends to take over our society and force us to accept Islam. If we resist they intend to kill us. That being the case, you can see that "cultural exchanges, sporting events (now, that's a laugher!)..." are out of the question as a means of defense.
My God, ma'am, do you not understand the nature of the problem? I refer you to look on the Internet under "Neville Chamberlain" to understand how negotiations with such an enemy is out of the question.
As to the impact of the President having combat experience, I refer you to combine "World War II" and "Franklin D. Roosevelt" on the Net. You will find that not having military experience was no obstacle to Franklin. For goodness sakes! Read a little history.