As I said, military experience has things to tell us, but unless you've operated at the senior policy-making level (which can include Colonels, really) combat experience as junior officer/soldier isn't relevant to the National Security Strategy/National Defense Strategy/National Military Strategy aspect of things. President Franklin Roosevelt did just fine in that regard - no direct military service and his relevant "defense" experience was as an Assistant Secretary of the Navy. But *that* experience is frankly far more relevant to the job of President than dropping bombs on North Vietnam, motoring it's waterways chasing the VC, flying CAP in the Gulf of Mexico, or never having worn a uniform at all. You don't have to have worn a uniform to understand that war at the sharp end is hell. But it's amusing to hear those who now pooh-pooh military experience, essentially even their own, who once found exactly that kind of experience to be crucial:
W]hat you’re seeing here is, is a split between the theorists, who have controlled so much of the policy in this administration, theorists who have never been on a battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, and who are looking at this thing in a totally different way from people who have had to, to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands.
Now, I could go on, but I'll let Jim Wright get the credit for having done all that research. Oh, who are we talking about? Senator Webb in this instance. But if we're going to use overall personal experience in matters defense as a metric, Senator McCain has rather a large edge over Senator Obama.
Of course, you can make the argument that we need such a complete break from the past, that *that* is the reason to install Senator Obama in the White House. Where he can surround himself with military advisors such as retired Generals Wes Clark or Merrill McPeak, who enjoy a huge popularity in military circles. (not)
Or you can argue that other things are simply more important right now, that we can afford to have a tyro in the office, because his other skills address far more important issues. You can make that argument. And, according to polling, apparently they should be, given that the electorate is seemingly more concerned about the economy than the war. But apparently the national defense thing *is* a very important issue, and the best Senator Obama's surrogates have to offer is - "Hey, being a POW is no big thing as a qual for President." vice, "Here's why we're the better choice." Because they keep getting whacked at on the naif nature of what they offer as a better choice. Of course, it could also be because the more you look at Senator Obama's economic issues, the more he looks like a hard-core lefty - especially his voting record. And his politics of change certainly are - tossing old friends under the bus left and right, and sprinting to the center. Yeah, that's new -and making him friends!. He's just another pol who wants the job and will do whatever it takes to get it. Heh. Is it November yet? I'm willing to skip summer just to get past this.
Most of O's money came from his book sales. Fair enough for me. Why anyone would read them, much less pay for them is another mystery.
Of course, Michelle made good money too. And as soon as O was elected to the Senate, she made GREAT money, about a 300% pay raise.
I will need thorazine and a straight jacket by the end of this campaign.
Webb's asshattery has shattered the calm of my day.
Is Tourettes congenital or am I developing a case of it now?
I have to send out one of my staff to buy chocolate right now.
As an ex-infantryman, I think one of the aspects of military service that is too often overlooked is what I refer to as "existence at the minimum." Carrying your worldly possession on your back, sleeping and eating wherever you stop, not having control of your where or when or why have ways of introducing you to some of life's truths.
Heh. And Mr. 11B40 makes the point of why I was an artilleryman... and a heavy force artilleryman at that!
Bless those that love to walk - but I don't want to play in any game I have to walk to get there.
And flying there without actually landing and picking up my duffle at the carousel counts as walking...
However, a better understanding of the military, its history, and its purpose and role should be a requirement, as should be a better appreciation for the sacrifices and commitments that service members and their families make while serving their country.
Those candidates with well-documented disdain, "loathing", and ignorance of the military and its members should not be deemed qualified to be Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
It may not translate directly into something that enhances your resume but it is a valuable experience and one that teaches lessons that are never forgotten.
The fact that McCain served and Obama hasn't is not, in and of itself, indicative of whether one or the other is more apt to be a good leader. What is indicative is how they have handled situations that have come up in their lives, especially as it pertains to character.
By that standard I would give McCain a huge advantage over Obama. It's not that McCain hasn't made mistakes, it's that when he has he acknowledges them much more fully and shows more flexibility in dealing with them. It seems to me Obama has to be more or less dragged, kicking and screaming, to a realization that he has erred.