5 ms·

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.

nyc_pizzadev 6y ago
Wouldn’t this be akin to a military based government?
dragontamer 6y ago
Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government officials who know the details of building road projects or high speed fiber. Or heck, maybe a few web designer politicians so that official government websites actually work
- bigbillheck 6y ago
  > Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever Seems like a fair risk.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I think the fact that one of the world powers today is all about military and projected power disproves this. Almost 50% of the population of that country made it clear that the military is of uttermost importance for them. Then there are other countries where this is true too. I wish what you're saying is true, but I don't think it is in most places today, although in many it is like that.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    And the USA has rules preventing military from becoming politicians unless there's a break period. Because the risks of a politicized military are off the charts. Politics and military do NOT mix. And the current status where military is subservient to politicians is superior to many other setups we've seen.
- pradn 6y ago
  The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt, and are clearly the dominant force in Western Europe until the advent of industrialization.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians? The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards. > The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets crowned king of France after Charles VI. And by "Winning the war", you mean, the French-line of kings get to remain king? Kicking out the English king from their country?
    - pradn 6y ago
      I think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders. I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties. Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.
      - pradn 6y ago
        Moreover, I can only imagine how much grief the Armagnacs went through. It would make for a good opera. (I'm not trying to minimize the grief of the others, but just imagine if a ton of people from one family died - the grief must be different, devastating.) The one analogue I can think of is Mehmet III's summary execution of 19 of his (half)brothers when he ascended the throne. https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes-were-killed-by-their-brother-146628/#:~:text=The%20bloody%20royal%20massacre%20of,the%2015th%20and%2016th%20centuries https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes....
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I don’t think your status as a world power comes from 50% of your political leaders. At least, if that status was lost after that battle I’d seriously look into other reasons.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    After the battle of Agincourt, the Armagnac and Burgundians civil war changed forever. Time heals all wounds. The French became a major power later, but there was a very bloody time. I don't think anyone wants to "Agincourt" their own political leaders. Regardless, the Armagnacs were severely damaged due to Agincourt. The somewhat neutral Burgundians had much more prominence after the battle. ------- In the short term, King Henry V (of England) is named the heir to the throne of France. It takes nearly 30 years before another battle routes the English forces and forces England back to its island. I'd say having a foreign king declared heir to the throne, while nearly eradicating one major political party (Armagnacs) is a pretty big deal. France doesn't make any major moves until the 1500s, nearly a hundred years later.
- mgarfias 6y ago
  I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power. Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot. ---------- In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral. Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war. The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties. ---------- > political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions. Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles. The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case. Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.
    - mgarfias 6y ago
      No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors. Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 6y ago
This is such an awful idea, I love it.
koolba 6y ago
I’d prefer requiring they have children that serve in the armed forces. Nothing makes you think twice about sending people to die in foreign lands as much as your own child being right there with them.
- omnicarinha 6y ago
  Well this already happens at some places, but due to some "internal works" (i.e nepotism) their children are always highly ranked and can sit at the comfort of their home country while a war is waged.
- gph 6y ago
  Then you'd just be optimizing even more for sociopathic politicians. It's not like caring more about your children than power is some universal behavior in humans.
arethuza 6y ago
Pretty much every recent generation of the UK royalty has had someone who has been in combat.
temp8964 6y ago
How do you put this mandate on your enemy?
PNWChris 6y ago
Is the goal of such a policy to expose our leaders to the horrors of war, and hopefully yield a more compassionate government? A noble idea, but to implement it, you would basically need to actively pursue a state of war. If the government of enlightened former-warriors created a world without war, would that be a failure for future generations because their leaders wouldn't get the exposure required? At the end of the day, we ought to find more sustainable ways to prepare our civil servants and filter for capable leaders.
bargle0 6y ago
Then the only people willing to lead would be soldiers. That probably isn't the outcome you want.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  I hear Myanmar has some excellent leaders with a military background.
MattGaiser 6y ago
This law would be accompanied by billions for drone research.
fsloth 6y ago
So you propose a military junta? I hear it's been tried a few times in world history.
drran 6y ago
On October 7, 1916, near Bapaume, France, Hitler was wounded in the leg by a shell blast. On October 14, 1918, Corporal Adolf Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British gas shell. This experience helped him a lot to start WWW II.
nsajko 6y ago
One big problem with your wish is that it's underspecified. How close to danger would you put the politicians, exactly?
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > How close to danger would you put the politicians the Japanese politicians currently arguing that "the water of Fukushima does not present any danger to the environment and that it should be dumped into the sea" should only be allowed to consume the water they claim to be safe. that's about as close as it needs to be in order for accountability.
pjc50 6y ago
In asymmetric and counter-insurgency warfare, they already are, because the battlefield is everywhere. Ditto for nuclear weapons.
neilsense 6y ago
System of a Down had a song about this - BYOB
kodah 6y ago
Politicians do come by the battlefield and then they go home and brag about how they were exposed to war. This is common across the political spectrum. Mostly their visits had nothing to do with actual policy and had more to do with scoring a picture with people in standard fatigues on big bases. Rarely if ever did those politicians get to see what it's like when a few American Marines are instructed to go on patrol with a platoon of Afghan National Army soldiers (I'm reminded of this story [0]. They'd parade the big armored vehicles by them, they'd show them videos of us blowing up things up from a distance, but rarely if ever did those stories cover when a 19 year old is kicking in the door to a house in Fallujah with a Russian supplied and made AK-47 pointed at his dome. Rarely would they see troops in their natural state. They made us shave, clean our clothes, and would hand out replacement gear if a VIP was coming by. This is a limited subset of behavior I personally witnessed. Civilians do it too though, most people's understanding of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on fiction and rumors, where the real pros, cons, and incentives of each are buried under a mountain of narrative and conspiracy. In watching all the dog and pony show nature of things I wondered if politicians and regular civilians would actually benefit from military service. In some way, I think yes. Maybe the left would stop crafting policy that is harmful to veterans and service members, like the ROE change that occurred around 2009. Maybe it would make the right do more than lip service and charade to the military and veterans. Maybe people would be more understanding and observant of the warrior class. But I'm always left with the thought that any of those experiences only mean something if someone cares to try to understand them in the first place. [0] https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/marine-navy-cross/8040409/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/mar...

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.

nyc_pizzadev 6y ago

Wouldn’t this be akin to a military based government?

dragontamer 6y ago

Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government officials who know the details of building road projects or high speed fiber. Or heck, maybe a few web designer politicians so that official government websites actually work

bigbillheck 6y ago
> Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever Seems like a fair risk.
capableweb 6y ago
> Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I think the fact that one of the world powers today is all about military and projected power disproves this. Almost 50% of the population of that country made it clear that the military is of uttermost importance for them. Then there are other countries where this is true too. I wish what you're saying is true, but I don't think it is in most places today, although in many it is like that.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  And the USA has rules preventing military from becoming politicians unless there's a break period. Because the risks of a politicized military are off the charts. Politics and military do NOT mix. And the current status where military is subservient to politicians is superior to many other setups we've seen.
pradn 6y ago
The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt, and are clearly the dominant force in Western Europe until the advent of industrialization.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians? The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards. > The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets crowned king of France after Charles VI. And by "Winning the war", you mean, the French-line of kings get to remain king? Kicking out the English king from their country?
  - pradn 6y ago
    I think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders. I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties. Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.
    - pradn 6y ago
      Moreover, I can only imagine how much grief the Armagnacs went through. It would make for a good opera. (I'm not trying to minimize the grief of the others, but just imagine if a ton of people from one family died - the grief must be different, devastating.) The one analogue I can think of is Mehmet III's summary execution of 19 of his (half)brothers when he ascended the throne. https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes-were-killed-by-their-brother-146628/#:~:text=The%20bloody%20royal%20massacre%20of,the%2015th%20and%2016th%20centuries https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes....
Aeolun 6y ago
I don’t think your status as a world power comes from 50% of your political leaders. At least, if that status was lost after that battle I’d seriously look into other reasons.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  After the battle of Agincourt, the Armagnac and Burgundians civil war changed forever. Time heals all wounds. The French became a major power later, but there was a very bloody time. I don't think anyone wants to "Agincourt" their own political leaders. Regardless, the Armagnacs were severely damaged due to Agincourt. The somewhat neutral Burgundians had much more prominence after the battle. ------- In the short term, King Henry V (of England) is named the heir to the throne of France. It takes nearly 30 years before another battle routes the English forces and forces England back to its island. I'd say having a foreign king declared heir to the throne, while nearly eradicating one major political party (Armagnacs) is a pretty big deal. France doesn't make any major moves until the 1500s, nearly a hundred years later.
mgarfias 6y ago
I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power. Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot. ---------- In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral. Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war. The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties. ---------- > political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions. Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles. The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case. Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.
  - mgarfias 6y ago
    No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors. Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
    - dragontamer 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thehappypm 6y ago

This is such an awful idea, I love it.

koolba 6y ago

I’d prefer requiring they have children that serve in the armed forces. Nothing makes you think twice about sending people to die in foreign lands as much as your own child being right there with them.

omnicarinha 6y ago
Well this already happens at some places, but due to some "internal works" (i.e nepotism) their children are always highly ranked and can sit at the comfort of their home country while a war is waged.
gph 6y ago
Then you'd just be optimizing even more for sociopathic politicians. It's not like caring more about your children than power is some universal behavior in humans.

arethuza 6y ago

Pretty much every recent generation of the UK royalty has had someone who has been in combat.

temp8964 6y ago

How do you put this mandate on your enemy?

PNWChris 6y ago

Is the goal of such a policy to expose our leaders to the horrors of war, and hopefully yield a more compassionate government? A noble idea, but to implement it, you would basically need to actively pursue a state of war. If the government of enlightened former-warriors created a world without war, would that be a failure for future generations because their leaders wouldn't get the exposure required? At the end of the day, we ought to find more sustainable ways to prepare our civil servants and filter for capable leaders.

bargle0 6y ago

Then the only people willing to lead would be soldiers. That probably isn't the outcome you want.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
I hear Myanmar has some excellent leaders with a military background.

MattGaiser 6y ago

This law would be accompanied by billions for drone research.

fsloth 6y ago

So you propose a military junta? I hear it's been tried a few times in world history.

drran 6y ago

On October 7, 1916, near Bapaume, France, Hitler was wounded in the leg by a shell blast. On October 14, 1918, Corporal Adolf Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British gas shell. This experience helped him a lot to start WWW II.

nsajko 6y ago

One big problem with your wish is that it's underspecified. How close to danger would you put the politicians, exactly?

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> How close to danger would you put the politicians the Japanese politicians currently arguing that "the water of Fukushima does not present any danger to the environment and that it should be dumped into the sea" should only be allowed to consume the water they claim to be safe. that's about as close as it needs to be in order for accountability.

pjc50 6y ago

In asymmetric and counter-insurgency warfare, they already are, because the battlefield is everywhere. Ditto for nuclear weapons.

neilsense 6y ago

System of a Down had a song about this - BYOB

kodah 6y ago

Politicians do come by the battlefield and then they go home and brag about how they were exposed to war. This is common across the political spectrum. Mostly their visits had nothing to do with actual policy and had more to do with scoring a picture with people in standard fatigues on big bases. Rarely if ever did those politicians get to see what it's like when a few American Marines are instructed to go on patrol with a platoon of Afghan National Army soldiers (I'm reminded of this story [0]. They'd parade the big armored vehicles by them, they'd show them videos of us blowing up things up from a distance, but rarely if ever did those stories cover when a 19 year old is kicking in the door to a house in Fallujah with a Russian supplied and made AK-47 pointed at his dome. Rarely would they see troops in their natural state. They made us shave, clean our clothes, and would hand out replacement gear if a VIP was coming by. This is a limited subset of behavior I personally witnessed. Civilians do it too though, most people's understanding of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on fiction and rumors, where the real pros, cons, and incentives of each are buried under a mountain of narrative and conspiracy. In watching all the dog and pony show nature of things I wondered if politicians and regular civilians would actually benefit from military service. In some way, I think yes. Maybe the left would stop crafting policy that is harmful to veterans and service members, like the ROE change that occurred around 2009. Maybe it would make the right do more than lip service and charade to the military and veterans. Maybe people would be more understanding and observant of the warrior class. But I'm always left with the thought that any of those experiences only mean something if someone cares to try to understand them in the first place. [0] https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/marine-navy-cross/8040409/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/mar...