Thread: Why dont the presidents fight the war?

A leader is here to "lead" his/her people, not join them. It is not thier place to fight the war, but only to lead it and keep the generals in check. Past presidents gained honor and prestige throug battle BEFORE becoming president, it was the only way to get the votes. Now we just listen to speeches and polotical views, which is why we can't seem to choose the presidents as well as we used to, back when honor through battl was the only way to the office. Of coarse we see presidents that were excellent generals, but terrible presidents (i.e. President Grant - general in the civil war).

Originally Posted by yanna

Yeh but when has he been to I raq

Last Thanksgiving for one.

That is true.. but George Washington fought in the Britsh War and Not President Bush thoguh

Originally Posted by Kawaii Gurl

That is true.. but George Washington fought in the Britsh War and Not President Bush thoguh

As someone already pointed out Washington wasn't president at the time either. Generals haven't gone to the front line since the Civil War, Presidents never have.

When you can name me a single government leader (Presiden, Prime Minister, etc) who directs any military action from the front lines then you can accuse the others of cowardice. Personally though I would accuse any leader who did it of stupidity.

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Why the hell would you consider sending the leader of the most powerful nation to the world to the front lines to be taken out by a sniper bullet (the merits of the results are outside the scope of this thread...)

It's true that President Washington fought, but that was before he became president. Back in those times, capturing the President was the equivalent of capturing the country... As leader of the nation's armed forces, the President is a legitimate military target, and must not be subjected to commen threats from front line military operations...

beleive me i know what yu guyss are getting at but seriously he should at least go into the country and look at the land where the fighting is going on. I men come on.........he could go and check the land maybe not take up a gun but at least go and check the stress that his troops are under like most of the other countries do

Originally Posted by yanna

beleive me i know what yu guyss are getting at but seriously he should at least go into the country and look at the land where the fighting is going on. I men come on.........he could go and check the land maybe not take up a gun but at least go and check the stress that his troops are under like most of the other countries do

And what would be achieved by it? You're not talking about anything he can't find out about through others. More effectivly for that matter since the others are specialists at evaluating just that sort of situtation. He has visited his troops. In such a way that no one knew he was there until after he left. Sounds pretty smart to me. You're talking about a country that has weekly abductions and assasinations of diplomates, ambassadors, and government officials. Can you possibly even imagine what would happen if insurgents got their hands on him?

Not to mention the fact that it's mostly open ground. perfect for sniping someone. And do you have any idea how easy it would be to snipe him, or launch an RPG at him. RPG's are very easy to get in Iraq, so just imagine how many people there have siper rifles, or something else with a decent range and good accuacy. He's a busy man, and sending him to Iraq presents a lack of security.