Are members of the military (former or current) the only people qualified

[rockymountaindem]

Poll question: Are members of the military (former or current) the only people qualified

to discuss military matters or those of war and peace?

The discussion about Kerry and Allard got me thinking about this, especially since much of the anger toward Allard centered around the fact that he has not served in the military.

On edit: please explain your vote

[Hobarticus]

1. Well, that depends...

The military technically is in the employ of civilians, so civilians have a responsibility to speak and be knowledgeable on these matters.

On the military point-of-view, though, I personally listen to one side of the debate more than the other. I have friends who've been to Iraq, who have been on patrols, and they say it's a mess. I also know a USMC major (retired) who served in Gulf 1, and he's the biggest fire-breathing lib I know. My dad's son-in-law is a career USAF officer in Iraq, and he says it's all peachy-keen; he works in the Green Zone, and has his uniform pressed by locals.

I guess I'd put the boots-on-the-ground opinions ahead of anyone else's in the service, and take the opinions of the rear-with-the-gear types with a grain of salt.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I have to chuckle at the poll

I'm a veteran. I do not want war. I worked for the department of defense. Wars are started/negotiated by civilian leadership and carried out by those in uniform. The last thing a soldier, sailor, marine, airmen, coastguardsmen wants to hear is that we are going to war. But once war starts, the best thing to do is let the professionals take over. The current administration are not professional war fighters, they are politicians with a political agenda. Those in uniform serve to support and defend the constitution, unfortunately they often are used as pawns by evil, ignorant motherfuckers (mostly republicans.)

[benddem]

3. Those who served in the military more likely to support

NOT. People who served in the military know what it is like to see people die, to see the results of war. People who've been in the military have insights that one who has never served does not.
Allard is an ass hole. He attacked Generals Hoar and Clark when they testified at the Senate Foreign relations committee and he was wrong when he attacked Kerry. He is really one of those people who should be told "it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[rockymountaindem]

5. That's not my personal opinion

I included that as an option in the poll because I have seen that opinion expressed at DU somewhat frequently. I think it's bogus to vote in one's own poll, but if I were to vote in this one I would vote for option three.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. I think there are some on both sides.

I know of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but then you also have the American Legion, who seem to have some of the most vocal pro-war cheerleaders.

[jedicord]

4. I disagree that those in the military have a pre-disposition

toward war. I feel it's more a pre-disposition AGAINST war, especially if they've seen combat.

One of the main reasons my Marine veteran husband was against the war from the beginning was because he knew it would not consist of only aerial attacks. He knew it would become hand-to-hand in-city combat and that many of our men and women would be killed.

[blm]

6. I agree with you - almost every military person with extensive service was

against the war, and thought it should be a last resort option. They also said that IF war was necessary that it be conducted with OVERWHELMING FORCE to achieve greater stability more quickly and with a clear post war plan for the peace afterwards.