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.
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
Seems like a fair risk.
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.
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.
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?
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.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes....
At least, if that status was lost after that battle I’d seriously look into other reasons.
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.
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.
Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.
We know what a warlord looks like when they're in power. The people who come to power by the sword are not peaceful folk. Military politicians (such as Samurai or Knights) seem to be more violent than democracies. They are more than willing to risk their lives, or send off their children to die to grab political power.
EDIT: In the Samurai / Warring States era of Japan, it was common to marry off your daughters to rival warlords in the hopes of keeping the peace. But when war broke out, the Samurai were ruthless: they were willing to risk their daughters lives to advanced politically (ex: grab some land and/or glory).
Back then, it was normal to fight a war for simple glory. Children be damned, or even your own life. That's the way of a warlord based political system.
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.
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/mar...
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.