Do you disagree with my assertion that most would prefer a President who takes their lives seriously?
Most want a commander who they believe in and trust their judgment. The civilian President is another subject altogether.
For example, GRANT was A TERRIBLE General. He simply played the numbers. He had more men to replace the lives lost when he sent troops into impossible places such as COld Harbor for example. If he had twice the casualties as the Confederates so what? Percentage wise it hurt them a lot more than him because he had unlimited lives to waste... That's the commander I am speaking of when going into a battle.
As far as Presidents go, I do not believe we have an obligation or a duty to be the world's policeman, only and unless what is going on has a direct bearing now or in the near future.
We should not be isolationist if that is what you are getting at. But I also do not believe that our Constitution is in favor of sticking our noses every place some elected President decides he wants to go something at either.
Those powers are given to the COngress to approve war.
Not a President.
Hope you can see where I am coming from......
| 
