Should military service be a requirement for the Presidency?

Question

Proof of effectiveness:
-Both Bushes were draft dodgers
-Clinton never even signed up
-The three of them seem to be more than a little inadequate at military strategy

Opinions?

Angry Bearded Man: Please provide proof, I would appreciate it greatly, thanks.

Ok, ok, my mistake. Bush SR was a proud member of the armed forces.

Answer 1

Not at all. Some of the worst military strategists in the world have been career military and some of the best have been career civilians.

By the way, George H.W. Bush was not a draft dodger, he dropped out of Yale to join the Navy at the age of 18 and became the youngest pilot in US Navy history.

Answer 2

I think it's an interesting idea and I thought at first YES. but then it would not really be the American thing to do. Anyone should be able to grow up to be president.

1) a military man could be too militarily inclined...if there was a choice between a peaceful no-military man and a general who would likely start a war---very bad.
2) many people would be very good presidents who never served (or served their country in some other more peaceful way

In the book, The Art of War, it states something to the effect that a king must not tell his generals what to do once war has been decided, he must allow the warriors to do their job unburdened by political constraint. Thr king cannot lead (far away) troops from his throne. I think a better solution would be to take politics out of war. I believe mandatory civil service should be required of everyone (male and female, fit or not), but not only in military service, helping the poor, building parks, cleaning the environment, etc.

Answer 3

A couple angles:

1.) Would it really make a difference? Does military service in and of itself provide added qualification to hold elective office? There are many outstanding Americans who are vets, but that does not necessarily mean they are well-groomed strategists or politically savvy. Likewise, some vets are politically active but not necessarily acting in the best interests of America. The best case can probably be made for a high-ranking career officer, but at that point such a person is not exactly in touch with common enlistment. Besides, isn't one of the hallmarks of America that we don't have to have military leaders?

2.) Military service is a nice ideal for a president, but we could say the same for advanced education or training in economics, education, social issues, law enforcement, national defense strategy and Constitutional law. Can we mandate any one of those qualifications over another?

Regarding your comments, I'd point out that Jimmy Carter was a successful Naval officer, and he certainly didn't light the world on fire. Also, Bush 41 served with distinction in WWII and was decorated after being shot down in the South Pacific. Bush 43 may have joined the National Guard, but Clinton was running around in Moscow. Then there's John Kerry, who served disingenuously for three months in Vietnam and was awarded the three most dubious purple hearts in history.

I think the conclusion to draw here is that effective military strategy (or incompetence) is not in any way linked to military service.

Answer 4

Yes, military service should be a prerequisite for eligibility for the office of the President. If you are the head of technology firm, it would seem to make sense that you would have extensive experience in the business. If you were the director of a hospital, you should have years of exposure to medicine. If you ascend to become the head of a religious institution, you should have been a lower cleric or volunteer of some sort administering to the constituents within that religious institution.

If it is a requirement in technology, health, business, religion, and almost any other field to have extensive experience in those areas before one can head an enterprise in those respective fields, why should the President be an exception? He is the head of the military, and therefore he should be required to do true military service, where he is actually exposed to real combat circumstances – not like Bush who merely went into the military for the namesake of being there. If you are going to send other men to their death you should know, first hand, what that sacrifice entails.

Maybe if this principle of real military service became mandatory for a would be President, far fewer Commander and Chiefs would treat war as cavalierly as this President has.

Answer 5

It's a good idea to have had military service - many of the problems in Iraq are, I think, the result of leadership who never saw active service. Though Rumsfeld did serve and he's often regarded as the worst of the bunch, so requiring that background may not help.

One correction: Bush senior was not a draft dodger - he served as a fighter pilot in World War II.

Answer 6

Uhm.. No. President George H.W. Bush was the youngest naval aviator in history, dude. He flew a Hellcat in WWII, at the age of 19, I do believe.

President James E. Carter, is the only man to ever witness nuclear fission, and live to tell the story! He served on a nuclear submarine. (Had to add the Jimmy Carter part. Naval History is my thing, and he's a Democrat. Way cool, though.)

But, I do agree that it would be prudent to elect candidates with proven military backgrounds, to be the top military officer of the nation. It's a serious responsibility. Conversely, I think it also prudent to elect a candidate who has seved civilly, too.

Answer 7

I am opposed to the idea. I do look at military service as a positive in a candidate but requiring it would eliminate virtually all women who are old enough. I know that many women have served honorably but the male opponent would simply point out that his life was on the line while she was in the typing pool. Never mind that she wasn't required to serve at all, it would look like she was exaggerating the record to say that her service qualifies. That is not to belittle the service of the women who actually served IN Viet Nam; I'm only saying that there were relatively few women who did and even fewer who are running for any type of public office. I would rather not have to wait for another female candidate until the generation of women who are serving now reaches 35.

Having this requirement would also rule out the possibility of EVER having a president who was handicapped from an early age. I would hate to have to exclude an otherwise excellent candidate because he lost a foot in a childhood accident or was blind from birth. Don't forget that part of the reason FDR never served was because he had polio and wasn't fit for military service. You don't have to agree with his strategy to agree that calling him unfit for the Presidency because of his wheelchair is not sound reasoning.

Answer 8

No, it isn't a necessary or even useful requirement for the presidency. 12 former presidents never served in the military. 10 sort of served but never saw combat. So about half would not have qualified under that criteria.

Answer 9

What do you mean both bushes were draft dodgers? Bush 41 was a pilot in WWII and was shot down in action in the pacific. Bush 43 was in the ANG, so how is that dodging? Clinton avoided the draft using the college deferment and was in Russia getting further instruction. You need to get a little more up on your facts there.

Answer 10

No, of course not. There have been lots of good presidents that never served in the military (FDR, and yes Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, lots more), and plenty of idiotic ones that did (Nixon, Bush Sr. [don't know where you got that he was a draft dodger, he served in WWII], Eisenhower)...


What we really should do is not have the majority of voters decide their presidential vote on irrelevant issues. "I like him," "he's good looking," "I just love the way he speaks," "the other guy is boring" are all pretty silly reasons to vote or not vote for somebody...