Military service a must?

Do you think that it should be mandatory for someone to have served in the military before being allowed to run for President of The United States?

No, but if they do they have something else to lie about.

I guess I should be more specific-my fault for being vague. The President is the Commander in Chief and the ultimate boss of all military personnel. As a Decorated combat veteran of the US Army, I just have a real problem with a non-vet giving me orders. It's much like an eighteen year old clerk at the Mini-Mart telling a mechanic of 20 years how to fix a transmission. It just reaks of bull to me. Just my opinion................

Well it would give them first hand knowledge of what combat is actually like. It might prevent any unecessary wars.

though that may be true, remember that the president has hundreds of panels of advisors when it comes to the military, and even though he may be "commander and cheif" its the high-ranking active duty military that come up with all the decisions about what to do. As ex-military, I would expect you to know this. I, myself, am not ex-military or active duty, but have had much expeirienc in military life, due to the fact I am currently living overseas on a military installation. So, i dont think the president should be required to have a military record, even if it might help.

Slingblade

Actually, the Commander in Chief is a civillian first partly to remind you military types that ultimately your orders come from us, the non-military citizens of the nation you have honorably chosen to serve. Thanks for your service.

In the past, rulers have often been military leaders, usually when it was the military keeping them in power. The US has had it's share of that to be sure, but every General who has gone on to become President has taken off the military uniform and assumed a civillian role and persona. The power of our President doesn't come from the military. It comes from The People.

Originally posted by blueknight
Do you think that it should be mandatory for someone to have served in the military before being allowed to run for President of The United States?

I dont think it should be mandatory, but in times like now, when the President is moving troops through a war zone, it would be a greater service to the soldiers to let the military leaders take the reigns and just let the President set policy.

Here's a question with a twist: What about a President who has served in the military of a former enemy??? Got your attention? When I served in Operation Desert Storm, we captured and killed many Iraqi United States citizens who were raised and educated in the US but had ties to Iraq. When the war broke out, they returned to join the Iraqi Army to fight against us. Confused yet? It happens a lot throughout history.
So what if one of those guys, after serving with the Republican Guard to kill Americans was to denounce his allegiance to Iraq, get pardoned and return to the US to enter politics and eventually become President? Interesting scenario, huh? Stranger things have happened. I think it would make for some very interesting viewing of White House press conferences on C-Span

Originally posted by blueknight
So what if one of those guys, after serving with the Republican Guard to kill Americans was to denounce his allegiance to Iraq, get pardoned and return to the US to enter politics and eventually become President?

it wont happened, once the American people are ready for the next Presidential elections and they heard about this guy they wont elect someone like him.

No, definitly not. The Commander in Cheif might be a military position, but it was not the intention of the Founders that the executive be a military man. The intention was clearly that there be a civilian government governing the US, not a military one. Besides, who would that've ruled out? Recently it would've just been Clinton no?


I do think tho, that it would be an intersting idea to only allow those congressmen who have served in combat to vote on declarations of war.

blueknight
It's much like an eighteen year old clerk at the Mini-Mart telling a mechanic of 20 years how to fix a transmission

Making the president having served in the military tho will not prevent him from being some know-nothing bozo. From what I understand, most enlisted guy consider lots of their long serving officers to be complete idiots.

Have you read much of Robert Heinlein? His Starship Troopers has a system of governance that is based upon your (reasonable) gripe. Indeed, only people who have served in the military are permited to be voting citizens (everyone else has the same legal protections, they just can't vote for representatives, and the representatives must be citizens too). The idea is, if you put yourself on the line like that, then you can be trusted to govern, and indeed if you haven't then you don't deserve to vote or govern.

What about a President who has served in the military of a former enemy

Only native born US citizens can become president. It would be an unusual circumstancefor one to be born in the US and fight in another army. From what I understand, that in itself is not legal. US citizens are not permited to fight in foreign armies, even volunteer armeis like the Lincoln Brigades in the Spainish Civil war. So Hemmingway couldn't've become US President, lets say.

So what if one of those guys, after serving with the Republican Guard to kill Americans was to denounce his allegiance to Iraq, get pardoned and return to the US to enter politics and eventually become President?

Hmm. Its the pardoning that would probably make it legal. Indeed, if they guy has been pardoned and is one of the good guys now, then it'd be weird, but not intolerable. And of course a guy like that isn't electable anyway, but its an interesting hypothetical. I think that the idea of one that hasn't fought against the US or a US ally or even US interests is an interesting 'twist' on that 'twist'.

Then agian, I can't imagine that any US citizen who left the US to fight in a foreign army against the US would ever get pardoned. Of course, I was pretty 'schocked' when Johnny Jihad wasn't executed, so maybe its not so inconceivable.

tac ops security
it would be a greater service to the soldiers to let the military leaders take the reigns and just let the President set policy.

What? Why would it be better? Generals are bad politicians, their job is to command troops. The president, as commander in chief, doesn't really command troops in the field, so the situation that you suggest is effectively what happens anyway. What do you suggets that they 'take the reigns of' precisely?

In my opinion, I'd say no. There have been presidents who served well having no military experience.

Personally, I think it's better for the president to have that experience. At least when it comes time for him to consider putting boots on the ground and birds in the air, he/she would have much more personal insight and wisdom on the matter.

Sorry for the thread resurrection here, but I ran into this through another post.

I'm in line with TacOps. Military service shouldn't be mandatory for the president, but at the same time I feel that the military leaders should be in charge of running the show. Even if they don't necessarily call the shots, they should at least get "veto power" for his commands. The military has been their life study, they generally know more about what works and what doesn't in the field than a civilian that has a pretty face and knows how to play the crowd.

Think about it like this. You're the CEO of a large manufacturing company. You didn't found the company, and although you know a little about the widgets you're producing, your main job is to make sure all the trains run on time. When there's a new order in, do you go down and take over as the foreman? No, you've also got marketing, sales, HR, accounting, etc. to worry about. That's why you hire VPs, managers, and foremen, so they handle the details. The same should apply to running a country. You hire your secretaries and generals to make sure all of the details are handled.

I personally wonder what would happen if we went back to the ancient days where the leader rode the first horse onto the battle field. How many wars do you think we'd have then?

I think that the President shouldn't be "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces, if I remember correctly that is the title. He should be elected to deal with legal issues and from the 4 Star Generals a Military leader should be elected by the people. Someone who under-stands how the military fully works and is able to introduce War Bills to Congress.

Originally posted by MCory1
I personally wonder what would happen if we went back to the ancient days where the leader rode the first horse onto the battle field. How many wars do you think we'd have then?

General Schwartzkopf was there with us.

These words still hit me hard...

"Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the United States Central Command, this morning at 0300, we launched Operation DESERT STORM, an offensive campaign that will enforce the United Nation's resolutions that Iraq must cease its rape and pillage of its weaker neighbor and withdraw its forces from Kuwait. My confidence in you is total. Our cause is just! Now you must be the thunder and lightning of Desert Storm. May God be with you, your loved ones at home, and our Country." -- General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, USA Commander-in-Chief U.S. Central Command, in a message to the command, 16 January 1991

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
General Schwartzkopf was there with us.

Good point, I'd forgotten about that. But (although I'm sure you know) I was mainly referring to having the President/Dictator/Monarch/PM/whatever riding point out to the field. I think there'd easily be much fewer wars. I mean, think about it. Which would be harder to imagine, Bush getting out of a APC in full gear right outside of Baghdad, or Bush doing everything he can to get Saddam on the phone in the middle of the night for peace talks? My money's on the peace talks.

Good quote by the way too; I don't remember hearing that one (I was only about 10 when Desert Storm broke out and cared more for the guns than the people carrying them.)

The seems to be no Schwartzkopf in this war.

I truly feel for our troops under this sorry leadership.

As far as never again seeing leaders ride into battle.. wouldn't it be nice for us all if they'd just duel like gentlemen?

if we could get a good president insted of the one we have now. out country might actually run right, well atleast try to. there is no perfect president to what i have seen. and if hillery runs i dont know as she will be even worth voting for. if we get another crapy run for election. when i go to vote i will vote for myself. or hugh hefner

It should not be a prerequisite for the Commander-in-Chief to have been a member of the armed services. It doesn't hurt anyone to have such experience, but it goes against the intent of the Founders to require such. It is not even a requirement that the Commandant of the Marine Corps be a combat veteran. The current Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is not a combat veteran and is the only Marine I have ever seen or heard of who rates a Bronze Star without the Combat "V." In my day, the Marine Corps only awarded the Bronze Star for valor. I hate to see that tradition abandoned, but I guess that's the way it is.

By the way, we have a great man as President and no one who can even touch him ran. GW has comported himself during these difficult times with near flawless equanimity. History will judge him well.

[edit on 2005/7/5 by GradyPhilpott]

You should never ask your soldiers to do that, which you yourself won't do and have not done.

Always been my view on such things.