In Wednesday’s editorial section Henry Nichols argues that an American president needs a military background. Our current president sort of has one, mainly confined to avoiding as much reserve duty as possible and strutting in costume aboard an aircraft carrier. But look at the damage he’s done to the country.

I would argue that a military background might be nice to have, but so would a previous career in some other, non-martial, area of public service. Most importantly, however, I would prefer his ability to seek advice, be open to talking to friends and enemies alike, to re-engage with the rest of the world, and to have sound judgment and high intelligence – all of which the current president lacks.

Mr. Nichols argues that a president should follow the advice of the generals, citing Patton and MacArthur as paragons of great advice. Patton was famously a racist and anti-Semite, notorious for slapping a hospitalized soldier, and insubordinate to President Eisenhower, who fired him. MacArthur, another strong force of nature, was similarly sacked for insubordination by Truman. I would agree with those who say that sometimes those who have seen war are most loath to enter into one. This seems to have applied to Eisenhower, but neither Patton nor MacArthur were cut from this cloth. MacArthur, for example, had advocated widespread atomic bombing of Korea and attacking China. This is why we entrust government to calm, sane people directly accountable to the public, who should be agonizing over decisions that may have horrendous consequences.

I will agree with Mr. Nichols that a president must seek advice from the military, but surely he knows that the president has the last word once a war is authorized by Congress. The president also must have a bigger picture in mind than simply managing military campaigns. The president is also responsible for shepherding our economic, health, education, energy, and environmental concerns – all of which have been severely neglected during this administration. With the biggest deficit in history, perhaps the next president should be a former economist.

Several of the other points Mr. Nichols makes in his letter simply make no sense. Bombing Hanoi may have gotten North Vietnam’s attention, but it certainly did not shake their resolve. Losing 2 million civilians to carpet and napalm bombing actually strengthened it. And his picture of Iraq as a beach head against hordes of violent Islamic extremists just waiting to overrun our shores is as ill-informed as it is comical. This costly U.S. invasion of the wrong country just inflamed people who think of themselves as patriots fighting foreign invaders.

No, whether economist, lawyer, or former soldier, the number one job qualification of our next president must be sound judgment. And a better knowledge of geography.

This was published in the Standard Times on August 2, 2008
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20080802/opinion/808020308