Draft Dodging President(s)... (Marines, wisdom, fence, Somali)

[JakeDog]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

If the president doesn't support America in its armed conflicts, why is he/she President? Isn't the President's foremost role to serve as commander-in-chief?

I think you would prefer a counselor, not a president.

It is the President's job to what is in the best interest of the country. If a conflict is actually HURTING America, I would expect them to end it and/or not support it. Vietnam was a waste. A failure to recognize that is likely to result in making the same mistake again. Blindly supporting every military decision ever made by the civilian leadership of this country is not a sign of leadership IMO.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

Who cares if Clinton had, as you claim a "lousy relationship" with the armed forces? He was president during the successful campaign in Kosovo. FDR was president during WWII.

Successful? It was a UN operation,That allowed thousands to die needlessly. The US provided 90% of the aircover at great cost to the taxpayers against a nation that had never fired a shot at us.
Somalia? Was that a success? Our military requested armored vehicles and were denied. The Clinton admin was concerned with how that would make us look.. How many soldiers died when the Clinton administration demanded results in the capture of warlords?? Was that a success?
Its not about supporting confrontation. Its about when we are in one supporting your military leadership. Trusting them to do what they have been trained to do.
LBJ " We won't bomb an outhouse lessen I say so" Vietnam was a goat screw because politicians couldn't let go of their ego.

[JakeDog]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Successful? It was a UN operation,That allowed thousands to die needlessly. The US provided 90% of the aircover at great cost to the taxpayers against a nation that had never fired a shot at us.
Somalia? Was that a success? Our military requested armored vehicles and were denied. The Clinton admin was concerned with how that would make us look.. How many soldiers died when the Clinton administration demanded results in the capture of warlords?? Was that a success?
Its not about supporting confrontation. Its about when we are in one supporting your military leadership. Trusting them to do what they have been trained to do.
LBJ " We won't bomb an outhouse lessen I say so" Vietnam was a goat screw because politicians couldn't let go of their ego.

How many US soilders died in these conflicts? How many trillons of dollars were spent? In terms of absolute debacles LBJ and Bush are the worst by far.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

It is the President's job to what is in the best interest of the country. If a conflict is actually HURTING America, I would expect them to end it and/or not support it. Vietnam was a waste. A failure to recognize that is likely to result in making the same mistake again. Blindly supporting every military decision ever made by the civilian leadership of this country is not a sign of leadership IMO.

It's the president's job to DECIDE what is in the best interest of the country. "Every military decision made by the civilian leadership of this country" is the responsibility of the President.

I don't understand your point. Are you arguing that the President should make it his/her priority to apologize for past acts of the country? Given the political divisions within the US, how is that in the "best interest of the country"? Before you answer, pause for a moment on the Carter presidency.

[ontheroad]

For interest sake, here is a list of the US Presidents and their military service; nothing about draft dodgers, just served or did not serve:

Military Service of Presidents of the United States: George Washington to Bill Clinton

[Evlevo]

Originally Posted by ccalvin57

I 100% agree with you. I think to be considered for "applying for office of President of the United States" there should be more requirements..Having served in the military for at least 2 years, should be the biggest. How can you as president know what you are doing when you send troops into hostile situations, unless you have had that threat as a possibility? Other requirements, in my humble opinion, Having some sort of Leadership experience (Business owner, LEADER in politics (Head of a Dept/Committee, Senior Senator/Congressman ...at least 2 years of College,(Maybe even a Bachelors Degree or higher should be required).....These are just thoughts. Of course, we should not make the requirements so strict that only a few people would be eligible also.

Originally Posted by ontheroad

For interest sake, here is a list of the US Presidents and their military service; nothing about draft dodgers, just served or did not serve:

Military Service of Presidents of the United States: George Washington to Bill Clinton

Well, I don't think that military service should be a requirement, and I think history agrees with me.

Sure, some Presidents with military history were good-great leaders (Washington - a General, Jackson - a General, JFK, and Eisenhower - A General) but there were plenty with service records who were terrible (Grant - A General, Pierce - A General, and Carter, as well as Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy).

Likewise, good-great Presidents have had no military experience (Thomas Jefferson, FDR, and John Adams) or virtually no experience (2 months of volunteer service in a militia by Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt isn't a whole lot, just like "acting in Military films" by Reagan doesn't really count either).

It just goes to show that there is no "magic formula" for making a great president (I'm sure the same is true for the other requirements like business owner, frmr political leader, etc, but I don't feel like spending an 2 hours researching it ), and notice that I tried to pull examples from all parties because yes, political party is no magic formula either. Would you really have denied our county John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt simply because they had not served 2 or more years in the US Military?

[Glitch]

01 - John Adams (F)
02 - Thomas Jefferson (DR)
03 - James Madison (DR)
04 - John Q. Adams (DR)
05 - Martin Van Buren (D)
06 - John Tyler (W)
07 - James K. Polk (D)
08 - Millard Filmore (W)
09 - Franklin Pierce (D)
10 - Andrew Johnson (D)
11 - Chester A. Arthur (R)
12 - Grover Cleveland (D)
13 - William H. Taft (R)
14 - Woodrow Wlson (D)
15 - Warren G. Harding (R)
16 - Calvin Coolidge (R)
17 - Herbert C. Hoover (R)
18 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
19 - William J. Clinton (D)

[Evlevo]

Originally Posted by Glitch

01 - John Adams (F)
02 - Thomas Jefferson (DR)
03 - James Madison (DR)
04 - John Q. Adams (DR)
05 - Martin Van Buren (D)
06 - John Tyler (W)
07 - James K. Polk (D)
08 - Millard Filmore (W)
09 - Franklin Pierce (D)
10 - Andrew Johnson (D)
11 - Chester A. Arthur (R)
12 - Grover Cleveland (D)
13 - William H. Taft (R)
14 - Woodrow Wlson (D)
15 - Warren G. Harding (R)
16 - Calvin Coolidge (R)
17 - Herbert C. Hoover (R)
18 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
19 - William J. Clinton (D)

and let me add to that... (hopefully someone can do a cross-reference... I just don't have the time

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presidents by average scholar rank
# President Years in Office Political party Average ranking
1 Abraham Lincoln 1861–1865 Republican 1.58
2 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933–1945 Democrat 2
3 George Washington 1789–1797 Unaffiliated (Pro-Administration) 2.83
4 Thomas Jefferson 1801–1809 Democratic-Republican 4.42
5 Theodore Roosevelt 1901–1909 Republican 4.83
6 Woodrow Wilson 1913–1921 Democrat 6.58
7 Harry S. Truman 1945–1953 Democrat 7.18
8 Andrew Jackson 1829–1837 Democrat 9
9 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953–1961 Republican 10.73
10 James K. Polk 1845–1849 Democrat 11.08
11 John Adams 1797–1801 Federalist 12.17
12 John F. Kennedy 1961–1963 Democrat 12.5
13 James Madison 1809–1817 Democratic-Republican 12.67
14 Lyndon B. Johnson 1963–1969 Democrat 13.6
15 Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 Republican 13.88
16 James Monroe 1817–1825 Democratic-Republican 14.08
17 Grover Cleveland 1885–1889 and 1893-1897 Democrat 15
18 William McKinley 1897–1901 Republican 16.33
19 John Quincy Adams 1825–1829 Democratic-Republican 16.9
20 William Howard Taft 1909–1913 Republican 19.67
21 Bill Clinton 1993–2001 Democrat 20.67
22 George W. Bush 2001– Republican 21
23 Martin Van Buren 1837–1841 Democrat 21.58
24 Rutherford B. Hayes 1877–1881 Republican 22
25 George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 Republican 22.14
26 Chester A. Arthur 1881–1885 Republican 25.5
27 Herbert Hoover 1929–1933 Republican 26.17
28 (tie) Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 Democrat 26.3
28 (tie) Gerald Ford 1974–1977 Republican 26.3
30 Benjamin Harrison 1889–1893 Republican 27.33
31 Calvin Coolidge 1923–1929 Republican 28.42
32 Richard Nixon 1969–1974 Republican 29.2
33 James A. Garfield 1881 Republican 29.57
34 Zachary Taylor 1849–1850 Whig 29.58
35 John Tyler 1841–1845 Whig/none 31.75
36 Millard Fillmore 1850–1853 Whig 32.41
37 Ulysses S. Grant 1869-1877 Republican 33.42
38 William Henry Harrison 1841 Whig 33.57
39 Andrew Johnson 1865–1869 Democrat/none 34.67
40 Franklin Pierce 1853–1857 Democrat 34.92
41 James Buchanan 1857–1861 Democrat 36.58
42 Warren G. Harding 1921-1923 Republican 37.19

[Visvaldis]

Like JakeDog says, the National Guard had a waiting list.
I was in the US army during the Viet Nam era and knew many who were concerned about being drafted and sent into the war. In order to avoid that they wanted to sign up with the NG, but the lists were very long. Anyone on that list would have to wait a long time, while still eligible for the draft. Only by personal influence could anyone's name be given priority and moved up on the list. Active duty was 3 years, the National Guard required 6 years, but the advantage was that the service was stateside.

Clinton objected to the war, as many others. (I know many who protested the Viet Nam war). He didn't run away to England, he was invited by Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. This is not accomplished by personal influence, but by having an exceptional scholastic record. Being a Rhodes Scholar is an honorable achievement. Clinton came from a working class background. His parents were in no position to exercise any influence on politicians.

[nativeDallasite]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Successful? It was a UN operation,That allowed thousands to die needlessly. The US provided 90% of the aircover at great cost to the taxpayers against a nation that had never fired a shot at us.
Somalia? Was that a success? Our military requested armored vehicles and were denied. The Clinton admin was concerned with how that would make us look.. How many soldiers died when the Clinton administration demanded results in the capture of warlords?? Was that a success?
Its not about supporting confrontation. Its about when we are in one supporting your military leadership. Trusting them to do what they have been trained to do.
LBJ " We won't bomb an outhouse lessen I say so" Vietnam was a goat screw because politicians couldn't let go of their ego.

We were already in Somalia before Clinton took office (we went in in 1992) so it's kind of silly to blame him for the conduct of a military operation that was ongoing when he took office:

The civil war disrupted agriculture and food distribution in southern Somalia. The resulting famine caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorise a limited peacekeeping operation called United Nations Operation in Somalia, known as UNOSOM I. UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self defence and it was soon disregarded by the warring factions. In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, the United States organised a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. The coalition, called Unified Task Force or UNITAF entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May of 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by United Nations Operation in Somalia II, or UNOSOM II. Somali Warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid saw the UNOSOM II nation-building efforts as a threat to his power. In June 1993, militia loyal to Aidid attacked UNOSOM II Pakistani Army troops in Mogadishu inflicting over 80 casualties. Fighting between Aidid forces and UNOSOM II elements escalated until 18 American troops and more than 1,000 Somalis were killed in a raid in Mogadishu in October 1993.

Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Yugoslavia...we were hardly the only peacekeeping forces there. Just because the country did not fire a shot at us did not mean that the civilians there were not worth protecting. We fought in a war less than 100 years ago that killed millions of people over a conflict that began in the same region. I supported our mission in Yugoslavia then and would support a similar mission today. As you can see by the slow but steady progress made by the newly-independent nations that were once a part of Yugoslavia, I think it was worth it.