Quote: Darknight613 said: I'd trust a president who has seen actual combat to lead us into war more than one who has not. A combat veteran knows what it's like in the field, knows what it's like to be under fire (especially one with McCain's record), and may not be willing to send soldiers into danger unnecessarily.
I find it difficult to believe that a combat veteran would put soldiers through what he went through unless it was serious (or unless the guy was a total bastard
There's a couple problems with this theory.
The first is that, as others have noted, some of our "greatest" wartime Presidents, including FDR and Lincoln, never saw combat.
The second is a broader, more philosophical, issue.
The United States was not founded on the idea that our leader should be a general or a king. It was founded on the idea that our leaders should be civilians. Otherwise, we ultimately run the risk of developing the sort of philosophy that leads to electing "military strong men," who run around in fatigues constantly like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.
True, the PResident is supposed to be the "Commander in Chief." However, the whole point of making him CiC was because we wanted a civilian being in charge of the military, in order to temper the threat of military coups.
And, of course, some former military men have been President, with varying levels of success.
The simple fact of the matter is that you can't stereotype the military in this way...good or bad...some former soliders may be less willing to lead us in...others might be more willing. You need to judge candidates as individuals, and upon their views.
