|
On one hand, I agree with everyone that has pointed out that civilians leading the military is a safety valve built into our system.
On the other hand, there are thousands of young people enlisting every year - entrusting their lives to their leaders, the men and women they know are trained to keep them alive in the dangerous situations that may lie ahead of them. Ultimately, if all of these well-trained leaders are doing the will of the Commander-in-Chief and that person has no military experience, it only seems more likely that bad decisions will be made and that soldiers will die as a result.
Now, I suspect that someone will make an argument against this, saying that these young people should think about that fact before they enlist, but one can only make this argument from a place of privilege - not everybody has the opportunity to make big life decisions based solely on their principles. I think it's completely logical and practical for military folks to want their Commander-in-Chief to have some experience in the area.
That being said, there isn't any good reason to require it as a presidential prerequisite when so many people are physically unable to serve in the military.
__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)
|