Prerequisite for a war

Kevster

If a prerequisite for a war was that the leader of the nation [going into war] had to actually fight in the war him/herself, how many wars would have been prevented in recent times? 'Recent times' here refers to the past 300 years or so.

Kevin

Sorry for the dull post on Valentine's Day... ...but I'm a singleton!

Manic Moran

Technically anyone in the military chain of command could be considered a combatant. Though I presume you mean front-line experience.

In real terms, the closest thing to do would be to consider how many leaders have military experience, preferably combat experience, and thus have a vague idea what they're looking to get into. Over the last 300 years, I think you'll find a surprising number of leaders, from Eisenhower to Mao, DeGaulle to Churchill, GHW Bush to Hitler, Roosevelt to Kennedy had all served on the front lines at some point in their careers. The concept of a leader without any military experience being more of a recent thing, especially when you look at history as a whole beyond the most recent 300 years.

NTM

jhegarty

Lots of leaders at war had a history of military service.

Hitler and Truman served in the trenches during world war one.

JFK , George Bush senior served in world war 2.


So severing at war doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

Kevster

Thanks for the replies - I actually knew none of what you both have written. I'll have to reformulate my opinion on this now. It just seems wrong for the leader to sit there directing men/women into a war, but I'm aware that these men/women signed up voluntarily.

Oh well, war solves... ...a lot, actually (as bad as it is on first thought).

Kevin

Overheal

With all due respect to Stragery though the Think Tank is best left in a secure place. You wouldn't exactly pull out your cortex and throw it at someone in a fight.

Leaders often visit the front lines an forward bases. Bush must have been out to Iraq or Afghanistan at least a few times. Whether or not these visits were public knowledge for reasons of National Security though are another story. Senators etc. are also frequently read about visiting the troops. See also Charlie Wilson.

Manic Moran

In fairness, there's a difference between a politician showing up at a secure facility for a dog-and-pony show, and actually being on the front lines trying to kill people. (Teddy Roosevelt was even awarded the Medal of Honor, the only US President to have that distinction)

I'll have to reformulate my opinion on this now. It just seems wrong for the leader to sit there directing men/women into a war, but I'm aware that these men/women signed up voluntarily

It's not as if the experience has no effect. For example, Then-Corporal Hitler was gassed in WWI. He found the experience quite unpleasant, so ordered that gas never be used by the German army in combat. However, one of the requirements of being in the military is, as General Lee put it: "To be a good soldier, you must love the Army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of that which you love." If the job needs doing, it needs doing.

It was over a century before the US had its first President who never wore a uniform (Grover Cleveland, 1885). Only nine out of the US's 44 presidents have never worn a uniform. Bill Clinton was the first since WWII.

NTM

Kevster

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, there's a difference between a politician showing up at a secure facility for a dog-and-pony show, and actually being on the front lines trying to kill people. (Teddy Roosevelt was even awarded the Medal of Honor, the only US President to have that distinction)

Precisely, and it was something like this which triggered me to create this thread: I was watching Sky News (God forgive me...) and they were implying how brave Prince Harry was to go to Afghanistan. I seriously doubt that he was ever in danger, as much as they want us to believe. There are guys getting their legs blown off who never get a mention, and this young British chap (Harry) goes out there, gets put in 'no' danger, and then gets lauded as a hero.

Kevin

Manic Moran

He was in the front lines as a JTAC.
As was his uncle, Andrew, who was a chopper pilot in the Falklands.
As was their grandfather Philip, who was a gunnery officer on a destroyer during WWII.
For what it's worth, they don't get much say over whether the country goes to war.

I was talking about the 'flying visits' such as 'serving Thanksgiving meals to the troops' or those 'fact finding missions' where a Senator does a daytrip downtown.

NTM

southsiderosie

I think it's an interesting question. I don't think having a leader with military experience would necessarily end all wars, but it would definitely bring some perspective, not only on the question of whether to go to war or not, but on the role of military spending, service, etc.

One of the main concentrations in my graduate program is security studies, and they always have an interesting (and sometimes odd) mix of career military guys and policy wonks straight out of undergrad. Although that's not my area of focus, I've noticed an interesting split in perspective between these two groups: most of the officers are there basically to figure out how to prevent war via sanctions, non-combat intervention, etc, while a lot of the purely academic guys are into "great power strategy", weapons systems, military escalation, etc. Given the discussions I've witnessed, I think I'd rather see the former rather than the latter in charge of big policy decisions on the use of force...but too often (in recent years anyway) the architects of war have never even been in a war zone, let alone fought on the front lines (i.e. Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.).

Manic Moran

Although that's not my area of focus, I've noticed an interesting split in perspective between these two groups: most of the officers are there basically to figure out how to prevent war via sanctions, non-combat intervention, etc, while a lot of the purely academic guys are into "great power strategy", weapons systems, military escalation, etc

The corollary to that is if the military guys don't muck about when they do decide to go to fight. No poncing about with 'limited force' or 'gradual escalation'. Hit first, hit hardest.

NTM