Commander in Chief

I'm wondering it anyone else thinks it's odd that our president is also CIC of the military and has never served in the military? How can anyone expect to understand how our military works if s/he's never been in it.

Seems to me to make better sense that if the elected president has not served, Congress should appoint a CIC that has served, or is now serving as the CIC instead. <puzzled>

There is no requirement to 'have served' to be the prez/CiC. Most cases its a good thing as most of the 'generals' are nothing more than politicians anyhow. The military serves the PEOPLE, the PEOPLE are represented by the prez/CiC supposedly.

Just think, there have been rumors of bho declaring marshal law prior to his exit and to do that the mil must be willing to 'follow' orders. You know how that worked out about 65 years ago! What is real scary is that the rumors implied the military was ready to go with the flow, and you know who that would be dontcha? Why none other than the 'generals'. Seems bho kicked out many who did not follow the party line or his line of BS, but as has been typical they all go away and are never heard from again. When I was on AD had a couple make it to the joint chiefs, and as they left they said they never did support what was in vogue but they never did anything to counter the in vogue stuff either. I had been around a few and the ones I thought were good were few and far between, the rest were plain old butt kisser/politicians.

The Constitution and founding fathers believed that civilian control of the military was the best idea and it seems to have worked pretty well for the last 240 years.

That's what his civilian and military advisers are for. No requirement to have served. I'm not going to check into it, but I would wager that our ex-military Presidents were no better at being CIC than those that did not serve. They just needed less advice from their cabinet.