Should our future presidents have to have had military service in their background?

Question

I would say yes. That way they would know the sacrifices being made hourly by those of us out on the tip of the spear.

Answer 1

Yes, unless they were cowards like John Kerry

Answer 2

I suspect now that the draft is out there will be few who have had military service that will run for the office.

Besides our current pres could claim he has military service of course only idiots would fall for that crap (the national guard unit was full of big shot kids was never will never be called up).

These kind of restriction would always have some unexpected problem. You just have to hope the people will elect someone with an IQ above room temp. Alas sometime it doesn't happen, all we can do is hope the country will survive.

Answer 3

Military Service is not a requirement, and it is also not a measure. Just because one served doesn't mean that they are more aware of the sacrifices.

Do you honestly believe anyone who has served as Commander and Chief of the US Military would be oblivious to the consequences of the decisions?

There are many decisions made every day that affect the military person. Many of those we do not understand because we are not priviledge to the information used to make those decisions. One who volunteers for service must understand that they are a tool to be used.

Many changes and much training goes into each troop to keep them alive, but in the end we are expendable, it is my honor to stand in defense of my Country.

I serve at the pleasure of My President, even if I don't like his choices. (Served under Clinton too) . I believe that the President, regardless of whom, has the best interest of the United States in mind, and if he(she) fails then we all loose.

Answer 4

If you say yes then you would deny a lot of quality people from serving as President, especially those that prefer peace to war, like ALL the Quakers--which then becomes religious discrimination!

I am a US Vet who served 8 years on active duty. I would PERFER a President who has seen military service, but I would not limit my possible choice of Presidents to only those who have served in the Military.

In the novel “Starship Troopers” by Robert A. Heinlein (the movie and animated series were based on this book), Heinlein talks more about this society. In his world in order to hold ANY government elected position the person had to be a veteran of military service. The idea was that only a person who is willing to sacrifice himself for society should be eligible to be a politician. However, to make this work the government had to accept ANYONE who wanted to serve, most of the disabled were teachers, but other “make work jobs” had to be made just so these people could serve in the military and not be discriminated against.

Military service requires that the person be fit and able to serve. Not everyone can make the requirements. In the Starship Troopers World people who served in the military did not have a choice of which type of service they did, it all depended on their entrance exams. The main character was athletic, but not a wiz in school so the only option available for him was with the high risk Mobile Infantry. (The book Starship Troopers is a science fiction milestone because it is the first SF novel that features troopers wearing armored suits, the movie skipped over this. In the book the mobile suits were every bit as good as medieval armor was against swords and rocks, as the mobile suits were against hand held guns and lasers or bug. READ the book and get a very different feeling story.)

Your idea sounds like a good one, but when you look at it in detail it has some problems. Myself and many Americans think that the current president is one of the poorest in our nation's history. He served in the military, as a pilot, just like his father. But, George Bush Senior was a fighter pilot in WW2, while George Bush Junior was in the reserve, and didn't bother to really show of for duty. This was a common ruse in his age bracket to avoid serving in Vietnam. So your system would still allow inferior people like the draft dodging George Bush to be President while denying a lot of more qualified people.

A good president will make sure that someone in his cabinet, who was in a responsible position over the military, served in the military. Our current Sectary of Defense is Donald Rumsfeld and He was an aviator in the U.S. Navy between 1954 and 1957, before transferring to the Reserve. (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld) Which was just in time to avoid service in the Korean War (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War "The Korean War, conducted from June 25, 1950 to a cease-fire on July 27, 1953") Donald Rumsfeld would have turned 18 only one month after the war started. But, Mr. Rumsfeld was not a draft dodger, because he was in Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships. So he went into the Navy after finishing his college degree, thus making him and officer and giving him valuable command experience. Still I think that his untested and new idea of using less troops to do more in combat was a source for a lot of the current trouble that the US is facing in Iraq.

Answer 5

No. One of the greatest Presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln had no military experience, unless you count him leading that militia against the Indians. However. that militia never fought anybody. That said it would be a great thing to put on your presidential resume.

Answer 6

No. They should not. Military service does not make one a good President. Look at George Bush.He was in the military.I say that laughingly of course

Answer 7

1) That would take a constitutional amendment.
2) That would have eliminated a lot of Presidents:
Adams
Jefferson
Quincy Adams
FDR
Clinton
Taft
Cleveland
Wilson
& many others, this is just off the top of my head.

Answer 8

I think it would definitely help, but I think the best thing would be to not allow people to be President who have run out on their military duties (like the cowardly Bush) and had their daddies "cover it up".

Answer 9

It should not be a requirement but i agree with you on it being a good thing. Killing other people in combat doesent necesarrily make you a better president..

Answer 10

not really, they should just be rounded individuals. It is not important to know what it feels like to kill and experience others dying. It might make them think twice before going into a needless war, such as Iraq, but then it hasn't stopped previous presidents.