Does it really matter if a president hasn't serve in the military..?

Question

I say nope..theres nothing in the military your going to learn to be president..whats the sense..

Answer 1

No. Speaking as an ex-Air Force technician, there are some military people who should NEVER be considered for office. Being in the military can't help NOR harm a person's chances to run.

Answer 2

Legally no, the President of the United States does not have to serve in the military.

Some will make this about President Bush, others about President Clinton. Ignore them.

As Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, it is always good to have an idea about military strategy. But this is a civilian position for a reason. A military background may make it more likely that the U.S. will blow things up rather than talk and manipulate out foes and allies. You think Iraq or Bosnia were bad, think about the full-military strategy..."nuke them all".

The truth is, most people who have seen a movie or read a book can plan a war and many of them can conduct one. It is the diplomacy and politics of the world that needs to be devoid of military though, but with a a mind on what the military can bring to the situation.

Now, serving in the military can give a person discipline and drive. It shows loyalty and integrity. But those are things that can be developed other places and show in many ways.

Answer 3

Not necessarily. But if you compare Washington, Eisenhower, and Kennedy to George W. Bush, it looks like there is a correlation between honorable military service and integrity and competence in the White House.

On the other hand, Andrew Jackson and George H. W. Bush were military heroes, but I think they were both lousy Presidents. Whereas Ronald Reagan, perhaps the best President ever, only "served in the military" in WW II by making movies for the Army. (Come to think about, the best thing about Reagan's Presidency was his great inspirational speeches, so maybe his military career did predict his future greatness in the White House.)

Answer 4

traditionally talking, we've had undesirable and good presidents who have been in the defense force. If being in the defense force immediately makes you a powerful president, then Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush have been the two good presidents. Going returned farther, Ulysses S. furnish became into the preeminent ordinary of the Civil warfare, yet became right into a foul president. tell your chum that by ability of his standards John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt have been all unworthy of his vote, as none of them have been in the defense force.

Answer 5

I think it matters somewhat as to having an understanding of how the military works. If a president is going to be in charge of 4 branches of the service, I would want him/her to be aware of what really goes on.

A smart leader would want to have a working knowledge of military life once they took office if they did not serve. If only out of respect for what they may have to ask of them.

Answer 6

The President's responsibilities are so broad (he's the chief executive of the entire government, /everything/ the government does is ultimately his responsibility), that no one could ever have direct experience with even a fraction of it.

As long as the President has good advisors with expertise in each area, his personal lack of experience in any one facet of the government shouldn't matter. That includes the military.

Answer 7

I think it is a consideration, but not a deciding factor for me. Even if you had been in the military, you would still need military advisers, because chances are, you haven't been in the military for a long time.

In some cases, I think *not* being in the military is an advantage because it helps you look at military initiatives objectively.

Answer 8

Well I have served in the military, so I can honestly say that by serving in a theatre of war a president gets to learn first hand what its like to kill complete stangers......... therefore he has at least a modicum of empathy or understands what it takes to do such a thing. Therefore he would have less inclination to send his fellow countrymen and women to war in the first place. Any fool can sit back and send kids to foriegn lands where they kill strangers or get blasted to hell, shot, and bayoneted to death,,,,,,,, any fool can do that, and thats exactly whats been going on in the USA since as long as I can remember. IIts the military industrial complex that is running the USA now, you guys need to wise up....and fast.

Answer 9

Despite the fact that I think it's good for a laugh (and 5-D Cheney, too -- he was the strongest proponent of this bogus "war"), I don't think it serves much purpose. It's the president's administration, advisers and generals who ultimately determine the course of a war.

It was that blunderbuss, incompetent puppy Rumsfeld who really screwed the pooch -- bogus "war" or no. That "hero" served as an AVIATOR in the NAVY in the mid-'50s, for crying out loud.

Answer 10

Some of our best presidents didn't serve and some of our worst did. FDR was not in the service and neither was Woodrow Wilson. They were both good presidents. Zachary Taylor and Useless Grant were both military men and they were terrible presidents.