Donald H. Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy as a naval aviator from 1954 to 1957. He was active in the Naval Reserve until 1975, giving him 21 years of military experience. <link>

As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld also has the dubious distinction of having been directly responsible for what is arguably the greatest military debacle in U.S. history. When Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki advised Rumsfeld that half a million troops would be needed to pacify Iraq, Rumsfeld fired Shinseki. The rest, as they say, is history.

It takes only one counter-example to debunk a weak generalization. The example of Rumsfeld should be sufficient to forever debunk the claim that military service is a useful qualification for civilian heads of the military to have. Indeed, Rumsfeld's military experience seems to have bred in him the arrogant presumption that he was a military expert fully qualified to second-guess his most senior generals.

The qualities that a civilian Commander-in-Chief should have are wisdom, sound judgment, and humility. When John McCain jokes that to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" is a good idea, it suggests that he lacks all three.

The qualities that a civilian Commander-in-Chief should have are wisdom, sound judgment, and humility. When John McCain jokes that to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" is a good idea, it suggests that he lacks all three.

Overall a good post that brings up some good thoughts. However your last paragraph only suggest that McCain has a sense of humor (all be it poorly timed) a sense of humor and nothing more or less.

Last but not least Obama's actions of late reek of just what I accused him (and McCain) of in the first place. That being nothing more or less than simple politicians who will do or say whatever they think the voters want to see or hear.

If and I say if Obama gets in, expect only two big changes in the white house; (A) The first African American as POTUS. (B) Then names on the various doors and that is about all... Period....

"The example of Rumsfeld should be sufficient to forever debunk the claim that military service is a useful qualification for civilian heads of the military to have."

I prefer the example of Jimmy Carter as absolute proof that Annapolis and naval aviation do not a decent president make.

My bad: Jimmy was an Annapolis-grad submariner before being a horrible president.

Then one could safely conclude by your post that JFK was a terrible POTUS because he had prior military experience? Dwight Eisenhower was terrible POTUS for the same reason?

What you are saying is that you would rather have someone who has absolutely no idea how, when or why the military operates. About right?

In that case I nominate my next door neighbor for POTUS, He meets all the constitutional requirements and has absolutely no ties to big business or lobbyists of any kind and most important of all he barely knows the difference between the Marines and the Navy or the Army and the Air Force. Should make a GREAT POTUS by the standards you set.

You'll get no argument that Carter was a Democrat and looser as POTUS. But then again Rumsfeld was not POTUS was he? So other than to distract from Obama's shortcomings ( in terms of military experience compared to McCain) I fail to see why you are bringing Rumsfeld into the discussion.

Lincoln and FDR did OK as commanders in chief. No Annapolis. No military service. Maybe it's not having worn the uniform but, rather, having some idea of how to lead the country.

True. But Obama is hardly Lincoln or FDR or even close to the caliber of person either was. Not mention the fact that as the song goes "that was yesterday and yesterday is gone." Lincoln was a dreaded "Republican." and FDR sadly died before the end of WWII. Regardless both were fighting wars that we could win. The war on terrorism will how did POTUS Bush say it "be a long and costly war" then something about no quick solution or end in site. Of course Obama has that covered' "cut and run". Oops that won't work, lets try keeping some troops in Iraq to attack the terrorist training camps.

You know the ones that aren't there right now, but will set up shop when we drastically reduce the size of our troops in the area, or do a full cut and run.

Face it, military experience IS NOT a requirement to be POTUS, on that I think we can both agree. But to give you a simple example do you want a POTUS who will have to learn why the military needs to be at a certain strength and needs to do things in a certain way and has not even been to the country he is talking about removing troops from to see first hand what is needed. Or, do you want someone who at least has a chance of understanding the needs of the military and has been to Iraq and seen first hand what is going on?

I choose experience. Life,military and political. Obama has been weighed and measured and found wanting in all three categories. To me he is like the pet rock. A new novelty that catches on quickly, but soon looses it's appeal as people realize it is not worth the price you pay for having one.

Neither Lincoln nor FDR were "known" all that well before their election. Both relied on others for advice on military issues. Lincoln, in particular, found through results that the advice left a great deal to be desired, the experts being unsuccessful, and had to grope for new ways on his own til he stumbled on Grant. Choose as you will. It is, of course, your right. I will do likewise. I am unimpressed with your guy's experience as it relates to today's problems.