McCain's military service, while honorable, has nothing to do with being Commander in Chief.

The US Army categorizes leadership into three main levels. Direct leadership, Organizational Leadership and Strategic Leadership.

For more:
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/ar my_board_study_guide_topics/leadership/a rmy-leadership-doctrine-.shtml

The three levels of Army leadership describe the different skills and actions necessary for handling increasing complexity at higher levels.

Direct leadership is the work of first-line supervisors, whether they are corporals, captains or colonels. It is about face-to-face communication, so it clearly applies at the tactical level in teams, squads, sections, platoons and batteries-even in battalions and squadrons. But the skills and actions also apply at higher levels, when leaders supervise, counsel and mentor their immediate subordinates.

Organizational leadership occurs at levels from battalion through corps within the military; at directorate through installation level for military and civilian leaders; and at assistant through undersecretary levels. From a warfighting perspective, leaders operate at the tactical level, but their influence is much broader when they operate increasingly through staffs. It may be helpful to think of brigade as the lowest level that is squarely in the organizational realm, for this level's leaders have staffs that coordinate with both higher and lower staffs. In a large organization such as a brigade, it is also impossible to know everyone in the unit or speak personally to all assigned soldiers.

Strategic leadership occurs at the highest civilian and military levels, whether in institutional settings stateside or operational contexts around the world. Regardless of the specific environment-Army staff, joint, combined, political or diplomatic-strategic leaders face uncertainty, ambiguity and volatility. They must think in multiple time domains simultaneously as they deal with urgent crises worldwide, yet still continually provide for the future 15, 20, even 25 years out.

In order for military service to be even remotely applicable to being Commander in Chief; that person had to have served at least at the high end of the organizational level, but in reality the strategic level is where leadership becomes applicable. Former General Wesley Clark is a prime example.

There are many in the military, both enlisted and officers, who never serve in a command capacity. Senator McCain did command the Navy's largest aviation squadron, VA-174, at Cecil Field in Florida. Without a doubt that is a highly respected position of authority, but this would fall under the bottom end of organizational level leadership.

When deciding who one prefers as President should McCain's service be considered? That depends on the individual. I certainly don't fault someone for giving him points, so to speak, for giving so much of himself to this country. In fact, I add that to my "plus" column as well. But from a pragmatic standpoint his service does not equate to actual related experience.

On the flip side it can be argued that, as someone who has seen the ugliness of war, McCain would be more empathetic to the plight of our service men and women. But unfortunately that is offset by the beach boys spoof "bomb bomb bomb Iran." It's also troubling that after the tax payers fully paid for the cost of his education, he would oppose Senator Webb's GI Bill that would do the same for the rest of us.

Unfortunately most voters view things through an overly simplistic prism. (R) + Military Experience = Strong on National Security.

Barack Obama co-sponsored the GI Bill that McCain opposed. Barack Obama wants to increase the size of the Army and Marines and upgrade our equipment to relieve the stress our branches have endured. Barack Obama was the only candidate with the courage willing to go after al-Qaeda when they hide out in Pakistan. Barack Obama has done great things for the VA hospitals. As a currently serving Airborne Infantry Soldier, Barack Obama has my vote.