Not to say I believe in war as a way to solve problems (except in extreme cases). But, do you think having experienced a war first hand would make the person think more critically about being involved in a war or give them more insight on how to handle decisions concerning them once involved?
2007-03-12 09:11:02 · 9 answers · asked by DizziDazi 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No, the founders wanted the military to be under civilian control. That is why the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
I think it is OK if a president has had military or even battlefield experience, but I think to require it would be contrary to the idea of civilian control.
2007-03-12 09:19:26 · answer #1 · answered by dsl67 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
The country is governed first and foremost by the Constitution, and it lays out the requirements (which are minimal).
Suppose we had a long time of no war.
No one would be qualified, would they?
Besides, history does not support your supposition that they'd be more critical about war, or have insight.
No, it shouldn't be a requirement; the voters should decide whether it matters to them, but the Constitution should NOT be am mended in this way.
2007-03-12 16:16:29 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no but they should have a masters in business and resume that promotes that. As far as battlefield I think it would be important to have a knowledgeable General to handle that. We have several people the president relies on for input. It is the president that does not know how to run a business that would think his ideas are the only right ones. I also think that congress needs to get a grip and take the nation back from lobbyist and venture promoters.
2007-03-12 09:22:10 · answer #3 · answered by Dennis G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they should not be required to have a military background at all. Suppose we are not at war, then you would have President who may not be qualified to do anything other than military type functions. Besides, the only way to change the qualifications for the President is to amend the Constitution, which very difficult.
2007-03-12 09:18:02 · answer #4 · answered by On Time 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the ideal state of no war was ever reached, where would the presidents come from. Would there be staged wars so presidential hopefuls could go onto the battlefield?
2007-03-12 09:19:06 · answer #5 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if that were so then we would have to be at war all the time.
2007-03-12 09:19:15 · answer #6 · answered by go avs! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, 90% of military people are complete morons.
The few educated, academy officers, know that this is a very bad idea.
2007-03-12 09:17:27 · answer #7 · answered by Duque de Alba 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no.....the only experience that should be required is that of the legislative battlefield.
2007-03-12 09:24:44 · answer #8 · answered by fox mulder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO - we are a civilian government.
2007-03-12 09:39:43 · answer #9 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋