Why Military Service Should Actually Disqualify a Person from Becoming President

Military photo
Photo by

You ever wonder exactly why so many voters are so concerned about whether or not a Presidential candidate has military experience? I’m not talking about the concern over electing a man who is technically a deserter from the military after getting his daddykins to interfere so that he did not actually have to put his beliefs where his blood was during the Vietnam War, nor am I talking about a man who just so happened to have a wife who gave birth exactly nine months and a day after LBJ went on TV and announced that married men without kids would become eligible for draft. It is the fact that George W. Bush cheated and then deserted and that Dick Cheney could talk his wife Lynne in a roll in the hay only once and that just so happened to be about the exact day that he found out that if didn’t get a kid soon he too might be have to actually fight for his beliefs that is the reason why their military service or lack therefore should have been a concern for voters.

As for whether or not candidate has served, I cannot see how that should have any bearing on whether he is qualified to be President. Well, actually, I can. To mind, military service should pretty much be a disqualifier to serve in politics. Think about this, won’t we: in the military there are only two things that can happen. You either do what someone tells you to do or you have people do what you tell them to do. Correct me if I’m wrong, but how on earth can this kind of culture possibly prepare anyone to become President of the United States?

Politics is about compromise. Compromise is the grease that oils the machinery of progress. Unless you are a President like George W. Bush, you simply don’t tell Congress what to do an then expect them to do it. Obviously, Bush proved it can be done, regardless of which Party controls Congress. Bush told the GOP and Democratic Congress what to do for eight years and they did. That alone should be proof enough that we definitely don’t need that kind of Presidency ever again. In fact, the Bush Presidency should be used only as a lesson in not what to do.

Once we get back to the real world following the death of Bush, er, I mean the end of his term, hopefully we’ll bring politics back to the real world. And in the real world, unlike in the military, when someone tells you to do something unethical or dangerous, you have every right to say now. The military simply does not prepare anyone for real life, but especially politicians. Washington DC does not work too well on the basis of a ranking hierarchy because, well, there isn’t one. Even when there is one, it doesn’t work well. This can be proved by the extraordinary number of former military men who have come forward to express their outrage with the management of the Iraq war. In the real world, these people could have felt free to express outrage; because they were in the military they were too afraid of having their careers destroyed. Is that the kind of mindset you want in the Oval Office? You want someone who has been trained to think that just because they tell someone to do something that it must then be done with no questions asked?

I don’t know about you, but that idea gives me nightmares. Oh, wait, it wasn’t a nightmare; it was the past eight years of reality.