Of the military and recent presidents
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
Barack-Obama-supporter Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for president, says Sen. John McCain’s military service did nothing to qualify him for the presidency. That sounds like sour grapes from Clark, who apparently has been recruited by the Obama campaign to try to limit the advantage that McCain’s military service gives him. Obama has no military service whatever.
Does military service build leadership character? Let’s see:
President Franklin Roosevelt was secretary of the Navy before being elected president, and during World War II, he set out on ships of war, at considerable personal risk, to visit troops and negotiate treaties, all while crippled by polio.
President Harry Truman was a captain of artillery in World War I.
President Dwight Eisenhower was general of the Army and led the invasion of Normandy in World War II.
President John Kennedy was a PT boat commander in the Navy, in which he served with great distinction.
President Lyndon Johnson was the first member of Congress to enlist after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He served in the Navy, won a Silver Star.
President Richard Nixon was a lieutenant commander in the Navy during World War II.
President Gerald Ford served in the Navy during World War II and displayed great valor in combat.
President Jimmy Carter was a nuclear submariner in the Navy.
President Ronald Reagan was an Army captain during World War II.
President George H.W. Bush was a World War II naval hero.
President Bill Clinton managed to avoid military service altogether. He also narrowly avoided impeachment.
President George W. Bush served in the Air Force Reserve.
Hmmm.
As a military combat-veteran, I can say that although military service is not necessary for a President to succeed, it is definitely an advantage in many of the duties incumbent on the office.
To be an executive officer, any leader benefits from a background in which decisions are made not only impacting one’s own safety, but the safety of dear comrades. Heroic exploits in the performance of such duties serve to enhance this dynamic, and the American electorate has a tradition of recognizing such leadership.
Save it. Your point is laughable. There’s nothing to suggest that military service better prepares a candidate for the office of President of the United States, and if you’re going to use Clinton as your counter…let’s get into George W. Bush, the least popular president in history who has seen his approval rating dip lower and lower and lower since September 06. Or if we’re really going to play counterpoint, let’s get into your narrowly avoiding impeachment…Richard Nixon was close too, and he also had the most corrupt vice president in the history of the office in Spiro Agnew. His controversy was much worse in terms of scandal than Bill Clinton being unfaithful.
But since you were attempting to discredit someone, I feel no choice but to list a few presidents that did not serve…
John Adams..he was pretty good at it too.
John Quincy Adams
Even though you stated that FDR served as secretary of the Navy, he saw no service and spent no time in the actual Navy due to measles…had no effect on his leadership.
There are 8 other presidents who did not serve, but it’s irrelevant, the times have changed, maybe in the early part of the 1900s military service was a bit more important than it is today, chalk it up to whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that it is not an indicator of whether a person can run our country or not.