[aruanan]

There was a reason why the Founders designed the system so that control of the military would be by civilians. It is just weird, considering their reasoning (which is far more insightful than almost anything else since then, especially lately), that someone would believe that military experience gives anyone any sort of particular advantage as Commander-in-Chief or makes one candidate for the office necessarily better than another.

The purpose of the armed forces is to protect the country from foreign enemies. The president doesn't at all need to know anything about operational matters in the military to be able to direct them to fulfill the goal any more than I need to know the mechanics of the internal combustion engine to be able to drive down to the store for a gallon of milk.

Thinking otherwise is really just a variation on the mistaken notion that the chief executive is supposed to be some kind of wonk who knows everything about everything so he can tinker and fiddle with things in order to effect a solution. He is supposed to know the Constitution and the role provided for him by it and then confine himself to that. His job is not "to run the economy" or "to run the nation" or anything else.

The economy is not the government. The nation is not the government. Both are to be protected by the government from enemies both foreign and domestic. But when people in the government start believing because they definitely have the power to eff up both the economy and the nation that they therefore have some sort of responsibility or right to decide how the economy is to be run or what the goals of the nation should be, then they have demonstrated that they are unfit for office and have become enemies both of the nation and its economy.

George Washington said that we are to consider the government as an untrustworthy servant, necessary for accomplishing certain tasks, but never to be given control of the house. Increasingly since the founding we have been screwed over by untrustworthy servants spending our money and commandeering our time for their own purposes. It's time they were all fired.

[Alberta's Child]

There was a reason why the Founders designed the system so that control of the military would be by civilians. It is just weird, considering their reasoning (which is far more insightful than almost anything else since then, especially lately), that someone would believe that military experience gives anyone any sort of particular advantage as Commander-in-Chief or makes one candidate for the office necessarily better than another.

You miss an important point, though. The Founders designed a system where there was never any intention of having a large standing military force dominated by career military men. In those days, local militia were called upon when needed -- and when the crisis was over the soldiers went home and did their jobs. I suspect the Founders would be aghast at the thought of American military personnel assigned to permanent military bases all over the world.

Heck -- I suspect they'd even be adamantly opposed to something like the Pentagon.