Originally Posted by okamido
How wise is it for the military...any military, to take orders from leaders that had never served in any capacity? Does it add any intangibles to an overall strategy, or is it a hinderance?
Is military 'intelligence' overrated?
I always find it interesting that Lincoln
had only two months of militia
service, and saw no action, and yet he was ultimately put in charge
of millions of Union soldiers and dictated military policy that happened
to win. Polk
served in the militia as a captain and saw no action either, yet
his time in office as commander-in-chief saw the annexation of millions
of acres of Mexican land. Winning does hide the blemishes.
It is all coincidental luck.
Secretary of War William Eustis (1809-13) was considered bad.
Secretary of War Edwin Standton (1862-68) was considered good.
Both had no military experience (although at least Eustis was in the field
as a doctor during the Revolution, and Stanton never entered the military)
yet, Stanton often gets rose-colored approval and Eustis doesn't.
It is mostly all luck and resources.