How important is it to you that someone seeking the US Presidency should have actual Military experience?

Question

Let's say a significant amount of time spent on Active Duty as opposed to no experience in uniform or a limited amount of time spent in the Reserves or National Guard only.

How important is that to you as a qualifier for anyone seeking to become President of the U.S.A.?

Answer 1

As a veteran, I find it difficult to accept should our country's leader have no military experience; or that he never showed up for duty when he did serve. Any person with final authority over tactical decisions should have a solid background in making those decisions. Without first-hand knowledge of troop capabilities and basic military tactics, the Commander & Chief is due to make insurmountable mistakes.

When the President refuses to listen to his top military advisors (Joint Chiefs of Staff), whether he has military experience or not, we lose vital leadership that could cost us in uncountable ways.

Not to say that the rest of the country will go down the toilet if there were no military background, but should we need to go to armed conflict we need a leader who either knows what he is doing or will trust his advisors with making the tactical decisions.

Answer 2

I would not vote for a president based solely on the fact that he or she was in the military, (John Kerry comes to mind), and I would vote for a qualified individual who has never been in the military, but that individual would have to demonstrate to me that they understand the purpose of the military. While it is imperative that the troops be cared for and supported (I am a US Soldier myself), the mission always comes first. I have witnessed first hand what happens to the morale of the troops when they feel their mission is not worthy (and I am NOT talking about Iraq). It does not matter how well they are treated, how well they are eating, or how comfortable the living environment is, although those things are nice. What matters is that they are doing something valuable with their time and energy. As another contributor pointed out, military personnel are aggressive (although I will fervently argue the 'small minded' accusation) and those of us who volunteered to serve and defend our country because we are patriot warriors become quite discouraged when we are tasked to distribute bottled water and blankets. Let the thousands of humanitarian organizations do that. Soldiers are meant to fight and win wars. As long as the President of the United States understands that, he or she has my support on that issue.

Addendum:
I don't distinguish between Active Duty and National Guard or Reserve at this point in history since all are serving Active Duty tours (myself included). The myth that part-time military personnel are somehow less prepared to perform their duty is simply untrue.

Answer 3

I feel it's very important. I was thinking about this the other day and wondered how we could select a President without some form of military background. I know people say Bush avoided the draft, but if I remember correctly he did join the reserves.

Also that was a war we should never have fought in. But people still love JFK and he was the one who sent us into Vietnam.

Sorry back to the question. The main title of the Presidency is Commander and Chief. So how can you be Commander and Chief if you never served in any branch of the military?

I'm not sure if that's why more women are going the military in the US, but it does make them more eligible in my eyes then Hiliary ever would be, who never served in any branch of the military.

Answer 4

It is very important and even crucial, since the Commander and Chief of all Branches of service sit in the Oval Office. Reservists and National Guard are trained together and are just as qualified as full time soldiers and sailors.

People who have served in the military four of more years knows what it takes to get a mission done correctly. Civilians who have never served are more likely to be politically correct, make reckless decisions and impede progress or stymie a win without going all out.

Civilians are more likely to cut the military spending, downsize the military and go for peace at any price. Negate personal, private and property rights and force you to give up certain inalienable rights. They tend to make domestic tranquility a thing of the past and help both foreign and domestic enemies prosper.

Answer 5

Overall, it would make him a better President. But, please don't believe that reserve or guard service is not as significant as active duty time. Most reservists/ guard members have spent years on active duty, then gone on to civilian careers while serving in the military part-time, as I have.

It's a shame that the era of World War II vets running for office has passed. I'd trust any member of The Greatest Generation over what we have to choose from now.

Answer 6

Lets say it is not as important as someone who can negotiate with other nations . Anyone who must deal with the world must deal with all people not just the ones you like .
Chavez down south is a prime example of how we want and support his removal from office .
A man elected by his people and who has done more for them then any previous leader elected .
That we do not support his views or his methods does not mean we should try and support his removal or assassination . When we begin to push an agenda on others it is always done with the best intentions . without the support of the people you an try all you want and never succeed even if you are right .
All people around the world would like a place to shop for food that is fresh and safe to eat a water supply that is safe and a shelter from the elements . They are willing to work to have these things . What they are not willing to do is work to provide others with profit and assist in the removal of the natural resources for other nations .
Some are forced to out of fear and government control .
If the only job in town is the mine that exports all its copper to America then do you work for the mine or not .The choice is hunger and death if you do not .
When opportunity to help ones family and neighbors is offered to people they always take it .
When an opportunity to serve others and help them exploit the people happens you get a security force with guns and fences to keep the workers in and protect the resources to be exploited . With little free opportunity to work for ones own benefit and that of the community you have people that do not accept Capitolism or the people who bring it to them .
I want a leader who can promote the values of family and social support for the community .One that accepts the less fortunate with addictions to deal with and mental problems that do not allow them to work well with others because our whole society is based on I am better then you because I wear better clothes or drive a better car live in a better home got a better grade on a test or make more money at work and any number of things designed to keep a large portion of our society as second and third class citizens in a so called free nation .

Answer 7

Well the days of Eisenhower mentality is over. He was a very good military commander as far as I know, and was a halfway decent president, but the president shouldn't manage a war. why do we need military commanders then?
Its a good quality trait for a personal resume, but in real life, war should be governed by those best at it...Commanders.
How many times have you heard this: "hitler would have been better off listening to his commanders..."

Answer 8

There are at least twelve, depending on which site you go to, that never wore the uniform in any fashion: J. Adams, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, VanBuren, Fillmore, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, Clinton.

Answer 9

N/A. the ability to lead is not subject to a person being in the military.and many 100+ million DOLLAR EXECS. were not necessarily trained in the field for the company they run. military background is a positive but not mandatory. best man for the job.

Answer 10

I could care less if they served or not. All I care about is that they are qualified to do the job of the President. I really don't care much about their past or their personal life. If Andrew Dice Clay or Marilyn Manson were capable of being a good President, I might vote for one of them. Judging from the crap they have been putting in front of us to vote for these past few elections, I would say that we would have better luck drawing a random American's name out of a hat.