Hi, sorry if that question is worded atrociously. I tried over and over to edit this in a way that didn't sound awful. But essentially what I am curious about is this: when a president like Eisenhower, who has held a high rank in the military, becomes president, has it ever uniquely affected the military during their tenure, in ways which it wouldn't have if any other president had been sitting in the White House?
For instance, has the military's size expanded during the presidency of someone like Eisenhower or Grant? Was there more of a hesitation to go to war under these presidencies? Did veterans see better legislation passed during their tenure? Or does it more or less not matter one way or another?
I'm not sure why I'm even curious; we don't have any military men nominated for presidency this year. However I've noticed that it's been quite a while since we had a former military official become president. Heck, maybe Eisenhower was the last one. I'm just curious what their relationship was with the military; if it was at all different from how non-military presidents interact with their armies.
Thanks for any information on my oddball question...
From a Poli-Sci point of view, Horowitz et. al examined the probability of compellent threat reciprocation for leaders depending on their backgrounds. Compellent threats must be interstate, contain a demand for material change, and involve an assurance of military action if the demand is not met.
Leaders who spent their careers in the military and didn't see combat had an 87% probability of compellent threat reciprocation, and leaders who spent their careers in the military and did see combat had the lowest probability of compellent threat reciprocation at 44%. Looking forward to other answers.