And that is all I am saying, how can one possibly stand up and say they are ready to command a post that they have no 1st person knowledge of. A father's stories are not 1st person knowledge, that is what a court would call hearsay. And can we drop the ‘army brat’ already, it's doesn't help his public perception when he refers to himself as a ‘brat’ all the time.
Personally I think military experience is a plus, but certainly not a requirement. Hopefully the CIC doesn't expect to prosecute a war himself. I think your suggestion plain fact which has been proven time and time again is specious. Look at the last century. WWI, Wilson, no experience, WWII FDR, no experience, Truman, experience, Korea, Truman and Ike, experience, Vietnam, LBJ and Nixon, experienced, Serbia and Bosnia, Bubba, none, Iraq, Afghanistan, GWB, experienced, BHO, none.
I'd suggest only Ike's experience in the military was significant. And before that, Presidents with significant experience. TR, maybe a bit of a stretch. Grant. Harrison. Jackson, then we're back to Washington. It's never been an issue.