You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you're not in the military, you are a civilian. You cannot be in the military and hold another full time job, whether it's President or Car Wash Specialist. You should stick to discussing your latest cell phones.
I'll get to the phones in a minute.
Now you're using technicalities, which is exactly the point I made from the beginning to undermine you're orignal argument.
You were upset that there was a notion made that Obama is unfit to serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces because he never served in the military.
You said "The whole reason the President is Commander in Chief is the founders recognized the importance of civilian control of the military."
If every President is a civilain regardless of military service, a point which you somehow think I don't understand, then why would you opposed to an idea that every President needs to have military experience using the argument that the founding fathers wanted civilian control? If every President is a civilian then having the requirement that every President have military expericene doesn't effect your argument one bit because every President is a civilain, and thus maintaining civilian control of the military.