I am assuming that you are a boomer. Your parent's generation (my grandparents) sent a lot of young men into the war, and every President from Ike to GHWB served in that war, if I remember correctly. However, the rapist and W are boomers too. Their war did not involve as much of the population as did WWII, so it is not surprising that we see fewer candidates with a military background.
...all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers. (dems and GOP'ers).
I don't think that one's military service (or lack thereof) is a qualifier for serving as President. Consider Gen. Clark - who on FR would vote for him because of his service record? Another retired general is on the record as saying he would not vote for Clark because of character issues.
That was General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11. Check the FR keywords for stories listed under the category WEASELY for details.
-archy-/-
I am assuming that you are a boomer.
Correct.
Your parent's generation (my grandparents) sent a lot of young men into the war, and every President from Ike to GHWB served in that war, if I remember correctly. However, the rapist and W are boomers too. Their war did not involve as much of the population as did WWII, so it is not surprising that we see fewer candidates with a military background.
Beginning with Korea, the Pentagon increasingly issued draft deferments to college boys and grad students that did not exist in WWII.
...all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers. (dems and GOP'ers).
I don't think that one's military service (or lack thereof) is a qualifier for serving as President.
Not anymore, I guess. The qualified guys would all be dying off. But I support bringing back the draft -- with no deferments. Even if it involved only one year of mandatory military service.
Consider Gen. Clark ...
I'd rather not.
- who on FR would vote for him because of his service record? Another retired general is on the record as saying he would not vote for Clark because of character issues.
Yeah, Clark is definitely not an argument for a military man as civil leader. Heck, if anything, he's an argument against a military man as military leader. I don't want to speculate as to how many men might have needlessly died, had he been in charge of the war in Iraq. The guy doesn't have decision-making capabilities to close a home sale, let alone a war. That he made it all the way to NATO Supreme Commander is scary as hell (regarding both NATO and whoever was in charge of giving Clark the command), and a judgment on the deterioration of NATO's post-Berlin Wall significance.