A Wartime President

A moral question: should a president who has never served in the military, and therefore has no idea of the complexities of battle and its dehumanizing effects. 

   All the presidents that I am old enough to have lived through never served in the military.  Bill Clinton was involved in his little ROTC scandal and that was about as close as any of our presidents got to serving.  I know what your thinking, no, the National Guard isn't closer than what Clinton did.  Clinton may or may not have cheated the government (depending on where you stand on the issue) with his own cunning whereas Bush used his father's clout.
   Despite Bush's (rather embarrassing) history in the military, he had no problem calling himself a "Wartime President."  He has no idea what serving in the military, how can he know how to act as a Commander-in-Chief.  To me this seems like asking a pig farmer to pilot a plane... set up for disaster. 
   My big problem with this term is that being a good army leader is so much more than understanding strategy, it is understanding how deploying an extra 21,000 troops (as Obama did earlier this year) tears apart families, friendships, and lives; sometimes for a few months or years, sometimes for an eternity. 
   Clinton, in his relatively infamous letter to the ROTC recruiter, he states that he was against the war in Vietnam and strongly implies that he is against all war.  It seems hypocritical that years later, as president, he attacked the Balkans now that he isn't the one doing the killing or in the way of death.
  It seems not only Obtuse for Bush to call himself a "Wartime President"but also really quite offensive to all the people who are actually wartime leaders.  The people who go and risk their lives blindly for us, regardless of the questionable values behind a war.