Do you think it would be smart to have presidents serve in the military prior to becoming president......?

Lake Lover

I agree with some of the others, in that it would not necessarily be "better," but overall I think I would have more respect for someone that has served - esp. in a war-time situation. I think they might relate to the issues affecting the military personnel and thus, be a little more careful about making decisions.

I would like someone who has earned their way up in life and feel it would bring a down-to-earth element badly needed.

Obviously, we need to look out for the interests of our country first. Also, we should not tolerate flippancy, idiocy or greed in our government officials. After all, they are here to serve us - not to be kings.

Thank YOU so much for your service and my best to you and all of our military men & women that work so hard and sacrifice so much to carry on their careers with honor.

I don't know if war would decrease.
I do think that if you are going to be the Commander in Chief you should have first hand experience and knowledge of how it all works.
So many politicians call for the patriotism of the American public by joining the military and asking them to be all they can be... but how many of them are willing to let their children serve? But they will take everyone elses.

Seems a little unbalanced.

misty n justin

I think that would be a great idea actually. Just so they know exactly what the servicemembers do. I don't know the amount of wars would decrease...but it might be a great look into the lives of our soldiers. Not a bad idea at all.

rmyrngr713

I think you need to distinguish between honorable service and service I don't think bush knows what an honorable discharge looks like.

YES I think they should serve

YES It would benefit them

NO it wouldn't but they would think harder first

tonyroma66

yes definitely.and by the way ,if you resemble your toon pic. in real life-your hot!

Henry H

No. Bush (Jr) "served". But that didn't stop him. Institute a draft, where every ones in the appropriate age range can be drafted! Men & Women. Most of the time, the wealth can keeps their kids out of harms way.
By the war, I served and I can tell you that war is just an extension of diplomacy. There will always be war, there will never be world peace. It's human nature.

rowlfe

I would not make it a requirement, but I do think presidents who served in the military have for the most part been better than presidents than those who did not serve. I am a veteran of 21 years in the Navy, mostly in submarines, so I never carried a weapon, instead I rode in the weapon. The thing is, my military service made me into a better human being than I was before. It made me a better person. I temper my judgement in what I do every day because of my military experience. I think the same would apply to almost everyone. Not all presidents with military experience were the best of presidents. Carter, for example, screwed the entire military by freezing pay and advancement and cutting back on active units and reducing the size of all branches as a budget cut. This one act screwed me and prevented me getting an advance in rate that I was overdue for. I ended up retiring at paygrade E-7 instead of maybe getting to E-8 or maybe the highest, E-9 because of this singular act which delayed me and everyone else by several years. Yes, I took it personally, probably not a good idea, but I did. George Washington on the other hand, most likely benefitted from being in command of the revolutionary army before becoming president, reluctantly I might add. Washington did not want the job and took it only because the alternative was worse in his opinion. And then, he excelled in the position in spite of his reluctance. I think our current president, Dubya, has made poor choices regarding Iraq that he might not have made had he had actual experience in the real military, not just a token showing of service in the little time he had in the National Guard. I wonder about the validity of his record. From my experience, without some kind of clout somewhere, men (and women) in the military just do NOT get away with something without repercussions of some kind. Hell, I was fined $25 for being late to Quarters by 1 minute! And he skipped a mandatory physical and nothing happened? So, yes, I think a president would benefit from service more often than not. That is not to say that a president wothout service can not do an excellent job, look at Roosevelt in World War 2. He never served but he did one of the best jobs as president ever. So, one can not categorically say military servece makes a better president, but I think overall, presidents with military service have done better than presidents without, though there are exceptions, like Carter and Roosevelt, and now Dubya. I think war is a bad thing. War is always a bad thing. Any war at any time causes suffering by innocents, the general public, non-combattants. But, war is something us humans seem to take as a way of life. Looking back in history, when was it that someone somewhere was NOT making war on someone else? I think, you will not find a time when there was peace everywhere. A president with military experience, real experience, not the shadow experience of Dubya, have, for the most part, been better at being president than those without, reducing the amount of conflict. A president with military experience would, in my humble opinion, think twice before going to war, would want more confirmation, more concrete facts of things, which is something Dubya apparently did not do before entering to an invasion of Iraq. Dubya lied to us, the general public about weapons of mass deestruction. Dubya has repeatedly tried to connect terrorism with Hessien, another lie. I think that a president with real military expereince would use the military more effectively, where it was really needed and was justified by concrete facts, he would use the military more prudently and would more likely seek another alternative as opposed to going to war. No warrior wants war. A true warrior feels going to war is a failure. I look at myself as a warrior. I served during the "cold war." One day, my submarine stopped in Hong Kong. I met Russian sub sailors. (frowned on, by the way, fraternizing with the enemy and all that) Russian sailors were the same as I was, worried about the exact same things as I was, how was the wife at home? How were the kids doing in school? Were the bills getting paid? My entire outlook on life changed after these conversations with Russian sailors. These were REAL people! JUST like ME! Worried about the exact SAME things I was worried about! Why in the Hell were we at odds with them in the first place? I'll never know th answer and I will wonder about that time in my life until my dyiing day and then some I think.

I think it less likely that we would have been involved in military conflicts in the past had the pressident at the time had real military expereince. I think it more likely that we would be involved in a military conflict with a president without military expereince. I think history bears be out on my beliefs of the liklihood of being involved in a military conflict.

maddog

It wouldn't hurt but it's certainly not required. Don't forget that the President surrounds himself with his Cabinet and top advisers to assist in decision making. Our top military leaders are included in that group. He relies heavily on their experience, just the same as a corporate executive relies on the board or directors for advice.

The number of military actions won't diminish until there is a greater level of trust and peace in the world ... which probably won't ever happen. It's human nature to exploit the weak and our military helps to defend those who can't defend themselves.

ohhhdear

No, it won't decrease the amount of wars, because a leader's military experience (or lack of it) doesn't stop other countries from being belligerent and attacking us.

However, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces has a difficult time relating to them and understanding how the military works if he has never experienced it firsthand. He also has difficulty gaining their respect.

President Clinton is an example of a President who made decisions and used the armed forces without having served in the military.

Kristen L

I don't think that it would change amount of wars, there would still be greed and power at play, also being in the military alone is not enough to change their opinion on civillian lives in other countries

ramshi

Not a bad idea. But it would not be a cure for all. Would you have them do research in medicine before they can make laws on stem cell research ? Would you have them work with human rights/philosophy/ethics before they can take on abortion issue ?

If there is a way to guarantee the prospective candidate has common sense, it would help a lot.

beb24

honestly, the men in the army would probably have more respect for the president, but if you sent every up-comming president into the army and they didnt come back, youd never have a president.
as for the amount of wars decreasing, i seriously doubt it.

cyndi

yes both enlisted and commisioned

mariner31

Every post-World War II President other than Clinton served in the military (Reagan was a Hollywood-warrior and also the Commander in Chief of the California National Guard) . I think it is very important to have solid knowledge of the military, but I wouldn't DARE to suggest that it should be required.

Do I think that would decrease conflict ? NO. Despite the whiners here... Iraq goaded us into this war.

Seattle SeaBee

I doubt the amount of wars would decrease, but it would help with the troops being able to have more respect for him. I remember my reaction when Bill Clinton was elected, but won't post it here, too profane for this site.

The Mr. Pine

The military is part of the establishment that controls the elections. Militery service is required if you are not in that crowd.

normobrian

We have had very few Presidents that have not served in the military. How's that worked out so far? Considering the cult of personality that it takes to become President in the first place, do we really need to limit the field any more than it already is?

winemkr

The president of Iran?

xenon

what ever happened to peace and love? :(

pqrama

George W Bush served in the military and he is an idiot, so you tell me if it helps. If we had a draft in this country and politicians children had to serve in the armed services, we surely would have less wars. Do you think we would be in Iraq if the Bush daughters were in the army, I don't think so. Politicians use their influence to keep their kids out of the military so what do they care if other kids get killed as long as they get their cut from all of the blood money being made from this unjust war for oil.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: