Would you support a law requiring that Presidents have military experience?

Question

To be honest, I had never really thought about this issue until I met and married someone in the military. It seems logical that you'd want a President who has 1) been patriotic and man or woman enough to be in the military and 2) has the experience since they would become the commander of the entire military. Perhaps then the President would think twice about sending troops to war because he or she would FULLY realize what war is like and wouldn't take the decision as lightly.

It really makes me SICK that most of the senators, congressmen, and other politicians in general do not have children in the military. Sure...it's easy to vote to go to war when it's not YOUR child you're sending to fight.

For that and many other reasons, I believe Presidents should be REQUIRED to have military service. And no, I'm not talking about the elitist, part time sh*t that George W did where he never actually did ANYTHING in the military. Your thoughts?

George W didn't even do what the brave men and women of the Nat'l Guard and Reserves do you idiot. He was a rich playboy who barely showed up to train. I actually have alot of respect for the military and those who serve whether full time or part time. I wasn't talking about those people! How dare you question my patriotism when you don't even know me? I'm actually advocating for military experience you dumb sh*t.

Sorry - that rant was aimed at Jame's answer below not everyone else.

I posted this question in another section and someone there made a great point. There are certain physical limitations that could exclude some people from military service. That doesn't make them any less qualified to be the President. Good point. For instance, someone can't help if they had a skin disease....for that, they shouldn't be kept from running for office. I guess I should back off the LAW part of it and say my opinion is just that military experience, in general, would make a better President but that's just my opinion!

Answer 1

Also being married to a military man, I dont agree. Because we have a voluntary military, I feel it would be unconstitutional. It would make most of the people in the country unable to run for president. What makes this counrty great is the fact that anyone could be president. Though, I would be more likely to vote for someone who has served our country, rather than someone who hasnt. I believe everyone in this country should join up, even if it is just the reserves. I would be honored to protect this country and what it stands for. But as I cant, (physically) I unselfishly love and support my husband for his choice to join the Marines. I would think it a small loss to loose my husband, if he died defending our freedoms.

Answer 2

I'd say the military experience is worthy, yet a long term experience,i.e. electing a former general, could be a first step of a military coup for a determined person.
The more you stay in the military and the higher posts you reach, thehigher chances to be linked to the military industry and to those hawks in the politics.

I guess this is not a worthy concept especially if you cannot see the true personality of candidates but only the prefabricated PR concepts to be shown to the voters.

NO presidential candidate probably steps forwards and says .. i have been drinking too much , but it is the past... you only see a superhumans stripped of all bad orcompromising.

Answer 3

Your idea would require an amendment to the Constitution, and would probably be impossible to do. You certainly have the right to take this into account when you decide who to vote for. I disagree with your suggestion, but I agree that those responsible for starting this war for the most part are cowards and draft dodgers, who did everything they could to avoid serving in Vietnam. Bush not only did nothing, but he went AWOL. The start of many crimes of his to go unpunished.

A better idea would be to have legitimate investigations into what has been going on for the past 7 years, then hold impeachment hearings followed by criminal trials, possibly for treason. We still don't know what happened on 9/11 and who is actually responsible, and 9/11 is only one of many investigations into the Bush Crime Family that should be on the congressional agenda.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have stood for their party instead of their country, and have blindly supported the Bush/Cheney regime no matter what they have done. The Democrats have been too cowardly to do anything, worried that standing up to Bush will hurt their political chances in 2008. I think that doing nothing is what will hurt them. Doing something to stop those who are trying to destroy our country can only help them, but Pelosi and Reid don't seem to understand the wishes of the American people.

Answer 4

No. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt led us in World War One and Two. Neither had ever served in uniform. I served under seven commanders-in-chief. Five in a row had served as Navy officers. None had any deep appreciation of the application of sea power, with the exception of Kennedy's use of a Naval quarantine during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that idea came to him from Adlai Stevenson.
Actually speaking, the engineer who built the Pentagon did give us a way of thinking twice before committing troops to combat. He set the location of the office of Secretary of War (now Secretary of Defense in a certain corner of the Pentagon. One where the person in that office was expected to look out of his expansive window before crossing the Potomac and recommending military action to the President. The view out that window is of the grave sites at Arlington National Cemetery!

Answer 5

Vice versa. I'd like to have it be a law that the President is forbidden to have had military service. Generals are qualified to fight wars but I'd rather have a President that knows how to create harmony and assent among other political leaders.

Answer 6

a number of our maximum suitable wartime presidents on no account served interior the widespread protection stress. Abraham Lincoln served for one 12 months interior the Illinois state defense force. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, probable our maximum suitable president, on no account served interior the protection stress. FDR had polio. on the different hand, serving interior the protection stress is not any assure that a individual would be a impressive president. time-honored furnish's tenure became crammed with corruption. Jimmy Carter, who served interior the protection stress longer than any living president, became additionally one among our worst presidents. What makes me unwell approximately a number of those politicians is their hypocrisy. many of the Dems declare that they help the troops yet no longer the war. those self same Dem's in an attempt to get the troops to leave Iraq are slicing investment that's confident to get extra troops killed. many of the loudest voices between the Democrats are Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, the two who controlled to dodge provider in Vietnam, the two graduated from severe college interior the previous due 1960's.

Answer 7

No way. Maybe a law that said that the President had to be a woman who had service age children? Now that would be interesting since no SANE woman would ever vote to send their child out.
Then make it a law for every country in the world.

Answer 8

Hey, I and most of ust in the military support our cause and our Commander in Chief. You're insulting us. The president doesnt need to see war. He needs to be a foreign policy expert and to be surrounded by advisors who are foreign policy experts. The neccessity of war isnt dictated by how much it sucks. By the way, George W. didnt pull me out of my house and send me to a war. We are a VOLUNTEER military.
Military experience, although commendable, has little to do with the job of President of the United States.
------
BTW alot of people have done the thing you just called "part time bullshit" and its called the National Guard/ Reserves. They are great people who served their country well during war and peacetime and what you just said about them is distgusting. Your an anti-bush liberal who is pretending to be pro-military to get "cool points." Knock it off. You're being offensive.

Answer 9

It's a good thought, but unfortunately, it would probably rule out too many good candidates. Albeit an important one, commander in chief of the armed forces is only one aspect of the presidency.

Answer 10

No. The Commander in Chief has to be impartial. The constitution doesn't require it so why should he?