I read an article on Yahoo! this morning that summarized Independent view on the two candidates, Obama and McCain, regarding their views on national security and the war. The
article concluded that more people in the general public, across all party lines, feel McCain would do a better job, even some Democrats. A quote:Republican pollster Neil Newhouse calls these voters "nose holders."
"They don't like the fact that were over there, they don't think the decision was the right one, but they understand that if we simply withdraw our troops, it would leave things worse off," he said.
This is pretty much how I feel too.
I don't recall if I've mentioned it in this blog or not, but Lisa (very Democratic) and I had what i considered a great conversation about this on our way back from Akron. I explained that i have a lot of reservations about Obama as our head military leader because he has no military experience at all versus McCain who has. I justified this by stating that the world is becoming less peaceful and having someone with a strong background in this area is more and more important. She agreed with my logic but commented back that expecting our President to have military experience is a nice hope but she suspects this will be one of the last elections where a military leader is even running. With no draft, an aging generation of people who have gone to war (WW2, Vietnam, etc.) and, compared to the size of the general population, not many have been to Iraq, the pool of military people is small in general and those in that group political aspirations is even smaller.
She's right.
That makes me worried.
10 comments:
Unfortunately I agree with you both too. I think that if someone is going to head our military they should have experience in our military. I also think that the group of people with that experience is getting smaller and smaller.
I hadn't thought about that until Lisa/you shared on your blog. Very good point and concerning.
I never really thought about having someone with military experiance was important or not. But one thing to keep in mind: They ARE the chief executive of the military. Wouldn't you want the top person who makes all the decisions like that to have some idea what they are doing and controling...? Otherwise, that'd be like saying I'm qualified as CEO of a financial institution - UM, no!
I know religion and politics are considered "off-limits." What is the third?
Call be a skeptic, but I have never put much stock in our President being the military leader. I think it's in title only. To think that some yahoo who rolls into the White House for 4 years would realy know all the top secret information that our real military generals who make entire careers out of this stuff to me is crazy. If I had some long term top secret prject in the military you better believe I wouldn't tell the president as they waltz in and out of office. I also don't believe the president alone can send the troops into combat without alignment from the existing military heads. I see the president as pawn versus leader.
Realy I think thre president is a figure head, sure they have a lot of power, but they have a lot of advisors and other people telling them what to do.
For me the question is who is the best figure head, who portrays the best image of our nation and the direction we want to head.
Personally I struggle with a lot of our foreign policy especially since we are allowed to have nukes but only feel comfortable if we keep everyone else from having nukes. It's always OK for us to make some military strikes but not others. I think the US does well when other countries see things our way, and when they don't we can be bullies versus understanding the different points of view. Now I'm not talking about extremism or obvious crimes against humanity, but in general I am not sure we need to run the show for the planet.
If we are justified in attacking other countries, I'm not sure why they can't be justified attacking their enemies as well. The US functions well as Top Dog, but it would be interesting if there were a few more super powers that weren't our allies to balance things out a bit.
I'm still on the fence with this one, but out of general curiosity and because I can't remember quite how things today got to be as screwed up as they are...
Given the current predicament we're in, how could the situation have been any better or worse had the president/CE of the miltary not had military experience?
I think we can all agree that the current president's military experience didn't really aid in good decisions having been made, but then again he was just in the National Guard, right? And that's not really full-time military, right?
I do not necessarily disagree that the president is a figurehead of sorts and has plenty of advisors to help him make decisions. I would, however, like a president who understands what being "in the middle of the fire" is and is therefore, better able to understand the advice received from his advisors or disagree if the situation needs. I do realize that the president cannot be knowledgable in every subject presented to him too (who could). I do agree with Karen, the world is not becoming more peaceful rather less and therefore a president who understands the military and military tatics is an asset.
I, too, struggle with our U.S. foreign policies.
NOTE: I have not determined who I am going to vote for yet.
I think the term "Experience" is the single biggest BS scam in politics.
In a recent poll only 12% of Americans have confidence in Congress. Yet Congress has a 96% re-election rate, mostly because they run around saying they have "experience", we fall for it and then they ignore us for another 2-6 years.
If we get the relection rate down to maybe only 50%, they may have to start paying attention to what their voters think. (Case in point the FL and MI delegates, "we'll punish you for ignoring our rules...until we need you")
As for President, he has the Joint Chiefs of Staff to keep him informed, so I don't see much value in military experience and being President.
Should the President also have a degree in Economics?
I'm struggling with our foreign policy these days. Part of me wants to pull our troops out of everywhere, but I know we need to stabilize things first. Ideally I'd like to see the military return to it's intended role as national defense, and not world police.
In general, I'm siding with McCain as far as defense/foreign policy goes. Sen. Obama's soft approach with people like Ahmedinijad (sp?) and Chavez worries me. However, I'm going to find it hard to hold my nose and vote for McCain, and I have to say the same for Obama. I'm not sure what to do, but I'll probably end up voting for Barr, the Libertarian candidate. He might not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, but at least I can sleep well knowing I voted for the person that most resembles my politics instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.
To answer Dave's question: No, I don't believe the president should have a degree in economics. Economic questions should never have political answers.
Go Tom S. I think you've summed up my thoughts pretty well.
I'm just happy to read that I'm right! LOL! Okay, sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Tom sums thinks up well, I found myself nodding a lot while reading his comment.
I find Karen to be an enigma sometimes politically. On some issues she is incredibly liberal, and on others very conservative. But my own husband is the same way. Sometimes I wonder how we are all friends...*grin*
Post a Comment