Sun Tzu

Personally I feel it should. As commander in chief it should be a given that some form of active duty (perhaps reserves) have been served by any candidate.

This doesn’t change the other considerations that make them marketable (successful entrepreneur, degreed, and other factors)

Someone that has had a successful position of leadership; such as a Senator, or governor, etc may have strong leadership qualities, but lack the element that area of the executive branch has control of. Its true checks and balances may take of accountability slack; but can’t make up for experienced insight. This obviously is my humble opinion; I’m curious how others feel.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

ARTelevision

Civilian control of the military is a founding principle.
I wouldn't change it or emphasize military experience at all.

__________________
create evolution

CoachAlan

I thought Clinton was a damn fine president, and he didn't have any military experience at all. Bush barely does.

I think the current prerequisites, as laid out in the Constitution, are more than enough. Those who want Schwarzenegger to be president (not me) would argue that we already restrict it too much.

__________________
"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go!"
- Mark Twain

Sun Tzu

I've considered that; and I can’t say that Clinton and any in the past that didn’t serve were horrible leaders. I'm also one that has the full respect of the republic's foundation. It's my view that the design allows for evolution while protecting itself from being ignored.

I have seen a recent issue about the U.S. being created on the foundation of Christianity; so there should be no friction with the element of God with national issues both state and federal. Did the makers feel cultural evolution could bring forth the grounds for such possible validity?

Militias had a tremendous contribution to US independence, but are seen much differently now. This for obvious reasons perhaps. Times have changed.

Without checks and balances it would be understandable why great concern would justify not emphasizing that kind of experience. But the 2 other branches carry tremendous power. I also believe the "industrial military complex" is something that has multiple dynamics that should be approached with great responsibility. Our first president led an army didn’t want the position for that very reason. I feel our evolution has brought us to a point that having that professional culture in their resume makes for a better suited leader in the area of Commander in Chief. I would hope that the evolution would continue to a point where America could shift most of its focus outside of defense.

If it sounds as though I saying there should be a General Patton at the helm; I’m not I humbly think service in the military present today would only enhance a candidate.

I understand your point though.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Sparhawk

Our greatest wartime Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, had no military experience (even though Roosevelt did serve as an undersecretary of the navy). So, based off those two examples, my answer has to be no.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

ARTelevision

Sun Tzu, although it may sound far-fetched, a military coup situation is one that needs to be avoided - even the impression of one. That's another aspect of what was behind the Founders' conception of civilian control of the military.

__________________
create evolution

highthief

No, though like other things such as successful stints in governor or senate positions, success as a business person, and other measurable criteria, it should be taken into account.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Sun Tzu

I’m not referring to a someone that is in a status of active duty at the time of application. Their obligation is to what their duty calls for. I’m referring to a person that is veteran; honorably discharged that is a civilian. While not impossible it would be difficult for me to see a coup occurring as such.

Looking at the Federalist papers the Founding Fathers intended that the Chief Executive would provide civilian control of the military; he, as an official elected to a civilian position, not a general or an admiral, would exercise overall direction of those forces, in the manner of the English Kings. But unlike the King of England and other monarchs, he would not have the power to initiate war. The American President's function as Commander in Chief, in the words of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 69 , "would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral. . . ."

The framers of the Constitution in their wisdom create a system of checks and balances on the military, on the Congress, and on the Executive Branch, even while according the elected President a resoundingly prestigious military title.

Never believing; or DESIRING on a permanent scale; that the military would become a huge part of the national government, an institution that would require a full-time operational leader, they provided no elaboration in the Constitution of the President's powers as Commander in Chief, nor anything about qualifications that he should possess.
The states were concerned about losing the power of state presiding power vs federal power. Very different than what the republic has actually become.

Here are the stats:
12 presidents did not serve in the military---John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Polk, , Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR and Clinton. Cleveland actually paid someone to fight in his place during the Civil War which was legal and not all that unusual at the time--a kind of pay as you go family deferment).
Of the 30 who served all were officers but James Buchanan who was a Private.
3 rose to the highest rank
General of the Army (5 Stars) - Washington, Grant and Eisenhower
5 Major Generals (2 Stars)
4 Brigadier Generals (1 Star)
3 Colonels
1 Lt Colonel
7 Majors (Navy=Lt. Commander)
2 Captains
4 1st Lieutenants (Navy - Lt. JG)
Andrew Jackson was the youngest to enlist. He joined the South Carolina militia at 13.
23 served in the Army, 6 in the Navy and 1in the Air Force.
15 saw action in combat.
2 pilots - 1 submariner.

George W. Bush: served as a pilot in the Texas National Guard with the rank of lietenant. ------this has some controversy

Bill Clinton: none.

George H. W. Bush: served in the United States Navy, attaining the rank of lieutenant (junior grade). He was the youngest pilot in the navy during World War II (age 19). He earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Ronald Reagan: served as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve; served in the United States Army during World War II, attaining the rank of captain. He was barred from combat because of poor eyesight.

Jimmy Carter: served in the United States Navy (1946-1953), attaining the rank of lieutenant senior grade.

Gerald Ford: served in the United States Navy during World War II, attaining the rank of lieutenant commander. He earned 10 battle stars.

Richard Nixon: served in the United States Navy during World War II, attaining the rank of lieutenant commander.

Lyndon B. Johnson: served in the United States Navy during World War II, attaining the rank of lieutenant commander. He earned a Silver Star.

John F. Kennedy: served in the United States Navy during World War II, attaining the rank of lieutenant. He earned a Purple Heart for his courage in the PT-109 incident.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: attended West Point; served in the United States Army (1915-1948; 1951-1952), attaining the rank of five-star general, and was Supreme Allied Commander in World War II.

Harry S. Truman: served in the Missouri National Guard (1905-1911; 1917); served with the 129th Field Artillery (1917-1919), attaining the rank of major.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy(1913-1920) by President Wilson

Herbert Hoover: none.

Calvin Coolidge: none.

Warren G. Harding: none.

Woodrow Wilson: none.

William Howard Taft: none.

Theodore Roosevelt: served as a member of the New York national guard (1882-1885); served as commander of the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment during the Spanish American War, attaining the rank of colonel.

William McKinley: served with the 23rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry during the American Civil War, attaining the rank of brevet major.

Benjamin Harrison: served with the 70th Indiana Infantry Regiment during the American Civil War, attaining the rank of brigadier general.

Grover Cleveland: none. He was drafted during the American Civil War, but paid $150 for a substitute (a legal option under the terms of the Conscription Act of 1863).

Chester A. Arthur: served in the New York State militia (1858-1862) and fought in the American Civil War, attaining the rank as quartermaster general.
James A. Garfield: served in the American Civil War, attaining the rank of major general.

Rutherford B. Hayes: served in the American Civil War with the 23rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment, attaining the rank of major general.

Ulysses S. Grant: attended West Point; served in the Mexican War and the American Civil War, attaining the rank of General of the Army, the first since Washington to do so.

Andrew Johnson: served in the American Civil War, attaining the rank of brigadier general.

Abraham Lincoln: served in the Black Hawk War, attaining the rank of captain, but was reprimanded twice and re-enlisted as a private.

James Buchanan: served in the War of 1812.

Franklin Pierce: served in the Mexican-American War, attaining the rank of colonel.

Millard Fillmore: None.

Zachary Taylor: served in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, the Second Seminole War, and the Mexican-American War, attaning the rank of major general. He became a national hero because of his achievements in the Mexican-American War.

James K. Polk: served in a militia cavalry regiment, attaining the rank of colonel.
John Tyler: served in the War of 1812, attaning the rank of captain.

William Henry Harrison: served in the U.S. Army (1791-1798, 1812-1814), attaning the rank of major general in the War of 1812 and became a national hero after his success at the Battle of the Thames.

Martin Van Buren: none.

Andrew Jackson: served at the age of 13 with the Continental Army (1780) during the American Revolution as a messenger, and was held as a prisoner of war (the only U.S. president to do so); served in the War of 1812, attaining the rank of general and became a national hero after his success at the Battle of New Orleans.

John Quincy Adams: none.

James Monroe: served in the Continental Army (1776-1778) during the American Revolution, attaining the rank of major. Monroe was among those who crossed the Delaware with Washington.

James Madison: served in the Orange County militia of Virginia (1775) during the American Revolutionary War, attaning the rank of colonel.

Thomas Jefferson: Apparently commanded a Virginia militia regiment in 1789.

John Adams: none.

George Washington: served in the Virginia militia (1752-1758), attaining the rank of colonel; served as commander in chief of the Continental Army (1775-1783) during the American Revolutionary War, with the rank of general. (Washington was a Major General at the time of death - in 1976, Gerald Ford posthumously appointed Washington as General of the Armies of the United States and specified that he would forever rank above all officers of the Army, past present and future.)

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

ARTelevision

Yes.
This was discussed quite a lot in the US in relation to Dwight D. Eisenhower. He left us the legacy of the "military-industrial complex". This has been quite a crucial issue since his time in office. It's the kind of thing that illuminates some of the problems with a too-close relationship between the Administrative branch and the military.

Once a General, always a General.

__________________
create evolution

Sparhawk

Lincoln was in the Army, learn something new every day - thanks Sun Tzu.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

pocon1

Maybe we should have all people join the military to becom citizens, like in Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. Noncitizens have rights, but only Citizens can vote and take office. They learn to serve, before they can lead.

seretogis

Absolutely not.

Requiring military duty to be President gives the military the power to directly influence future leaders of the country -- something that would cause our founders to roll in their graves. Though many Presidents have had military experience, the American dream includes the idea that anyone born in America could eventually become President -- requiring military service would exclude a massive portion of the population.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

stevie667

In my opinion, requiring a democratically elected leader to have served in the forces takes a big step towards a military state, and is therefor a big no no.

If you stopped people who didn't want to serve from ever having the chance of being elected, you restrict the rights of voters to chose the type of man they want at the helm. You also lead the office towards a military approach whether you like it or not, and if that becomes fostered over time as doctrine, we may find ourselves a few presidents down the line with an america run under martial control, which would suck, as it were.

Asuka{eve}

No

Seaver

Very good post Seretogis.

There's a reason we have a civilian in charge of the military. The military is a servant of the state, if you require military service it puts the upper echelon in too much control. They decide who gets advanced, what if some outstanding young officer has different ideals? By terminating him early they could cut off his political career. By putting the civilian in control of the military they keep them in the servant role, not weilding the reigns of power.

Supple Cow

On one hand, I agree with everyone that has pointed out that civilians leading the military is a safety valve built into our system.

On the other hand, there are thousands of young people enlisting every year - entrusting their lives to their leaders, the men and women they know are trained to keep them alive in the dangerous situations that may lie ahead of them. Ultimately, if all of these well-trained leaders are doing the will of the Commander-in-Chief and that person has no military experience, it only seems more likely that bad decisions will be made and that soldiers will die as a result.

Now, I suspect that someone will make an argument against this, saying that these young people should think about that fact before they enlist, but one can only make this argument from a place of privilege - not everybody has the opportunity to make big life decisions based solely on their principles. I think it's completely logical and practical for military folks to want their Commander-in-Chief to have some experience in the area.

That being said, there isn't any good reason to require it as a presidential prerequisite when so many people are physically unable to serve in the military.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Rodney

Serving in the military is one way that a future leader shows that he cares about his society, and is willing to work for it and take risks for it. But there are other ways of showing this feeling of responsibility that do not involve the military.

Take Jimmy Carter -- a military man, no question, and served his country faithfully and in a valuable way. But the non-military things that he has done since his presidency -- monitoring voting procedures in world hotspots, building housing for the poor, and so on -- are equally signs of good character and responsibility.

Seaver

Yes, that is why a wise President will listen to the advice of the Joint Chiefs of staff. It is on the American people to elect a wise president.

Rodney brought up a good point too, there are many people who volunteer their time to make the world a better place, many of whom might make good politicians.

kinkybob0

i put something in about Lincoln but didn't see that it had already been posted so i'm taking it out.

Bill O'Rights

While I will say that it is desireable for the Commander-in-Chief to have some experience in the military, I will also say that I make that statement from the perspective of one who has served. Do I feel that it should be a prerequisite? Absolutely not. Contradictory? No. Here's why. The POTUS has to make decisions that affect every one of us...every day. Some relative to the armed forces...most not. Should the President also be required to have a background in education or environmental science? Of course not. The concept, in itself, is not feasible.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Paq

just gonna say "no" for many of the reasons already stated.

Just simply put, civilian control of the military is one of the biggest reasons why we don't have a coupe everytime someone is elected. It's just what this country is founded upon.

Also, it would bar a great number of people from rising to the presidency, FDR in the wheelchair, for one..

I do, however, wish that you didn't have to be a gazillionaire (forest gump term) to run for office. I'm not saying you have to be, but it does seem to help. I can understand why it is that way, but at the same time, there are probably hundreds of people who 'could' serve very well as president but will never get the chance.

one last thing about lincoln in service...iirc, and my memory is kinda sketchy on this, but during his army time, he saw a scuffle with indians or mexicans that made him reconsider his active duty, so being a bit afraid of bloodshed is a good thing for some...

Also, just how great of a president was Grant...

then again, just how great of a president was Harding...

so cases could be made for or against military men in office, but i don't see it as a prereq of any form.

__________________
Live.

Chris

MSD

Yeah, what he said. To add my own thoughts, there are times in the life of our country when a person with military experience is better suited to the job, and there are times when a civilian is the ideal choice. It's an issue that should be taken into consideration alongside of other issues. How the individual weighs it agianst other criteria is up to the individual.

VTBrian

I think its a pluss if they have served, but deffinatly should not be required. The president is also our chief diplomat, but noone ever says a president should have to serve as an ambasador first.

onetime2

No it should not be a requirement. A broad range of experience is more applicable to the job IMO.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Stompy

I agree with most others, it shouldn't be a requirement.

The president only gives his permission so that generals can carry out military decisions.

He doesn't go to the front lines with a gun or plan in detail how the battles will be carried out. He might be commander in chief, but with all the advisors and other people helping him along, I don't feel that prior experience is nice.

Honestly, I think candidates use it as a crutch. Kerry's "Vote for me, I got purple hearts" or McCain's "Vote for me, I was a POW". So? I mean, I'm sorry you went through that and all, but please tell me exactly WHY this means you're a better president than someone who had absolutely no military experience.

I don't really like Bush, but I did find it utterly ridiculous when people were giving him shit for not being in the military. Instead of faking documents or whatever he did, he should've just said "No, I didn't serve, and it really doesn't matter."

__________________
I love lamp.

Sparhawk

^^ I don't see it as a requirement, but I strongly disagree with the above poster's notion that it makes no difference whatsoever. The way a man reacts under the pressures of combat (or torture, since we are using McCain as an example as well) says a lot about a man's character and courage. Two traits that go nicely into the "pro" column (but once again, NOT into the "required" column).

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

jcookc6

Jimmy Carter graduated from the Naval Academy and he was one of the worst presidents in recent history. Nice guy, good morals, went to church etc., but god, those gas lines, the hostages, the economy.

Glava

I don't think military experience should be a prerequisite for the presidency. I don't think a soldier knows any more about running the country than a cashier, or an engineer for that matter. However, having a former military man with a high rank <i>could</i> be helpful in fulfilling the president's role as commander-in-chief because of the macromanagement aspect of the job.

Fred181

For only one small reason do I believe that military service should not be required: as seretogis pointed out, it would exclude people. I don't think, however that it would exclude as many as you might think. There is only a small proportion of our society that would be denied entry into the military, yet would be able to serve effectively as president: Those with specific medical problems such as asthma and a few others.

On another note, I think people are reading too much into the idea of military service. John Kerry served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Navy, I find it hard to believe that a guy who rose to the rank of lieutenant (not that high) 20 years ago is going to have enough power remaining in the military to form up a coup, or enough of a military mindset to form a military state...

Also on the idea that the military could somehow control the presidency if service were required: The question was not, "Must a life of military service be required", or "Should a person have to be a General in the military" it was, must a person serve. Enlisted, Officer 4 years or 20. Many of those presidents Sun Tzu mentioned served for only 5 years or so. Many of them did not serve for more than one term, or only for one war. This does not mean that they are running around with some kind of warrior mentality or something.

In regards to the military producing some kind of pro-military super president; as a Senior Airman in the military, there are very few ways that my commanders, or superiors, could somehow influence my career enough that I could no longer become president in a way that my civilian employer could not do. And the idea that the military might be able to “groom” a specific person towards the presidency is trumped by the fact that the people ELECT the president, the military doesn’t appoint them.

Bill O'Rights mentioned that it is not feasible for the president to also have a background in education or the environment although it would be nice and VTBrien said that the president is our chief ambassador so maybe he/she should have been an ambassador. This is true, it is not feasible for these to be true, however many people (myself included) feel that military service is not just about learning about the military, or seeing what goes on in war. It is about SERVICE to one's country. It is about saying, "I am going to spend 4, 6, 12 years, or even a lifetime, SERVING my country. They do this not to get rich, not for the recognition, but because it is in SERVICE to one's nation. It is about EARNING some of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy.

This is somewhat of a lost ideal in today’s society. During WWII more of a cross section of the nation served in the military. They did it just like Reagan, Kennedy and Bush sr.; for 6 years or so and then went on to other things. Today only a few members of the upper and middle class choose to serve their country. People are content to do things for themselves and let the poor and the underprivileged go off to war for them,

SORRY, I HAVE DERAILED… I’ll stop now.

Before I get flamed too badly, I do not believe that the military is the only way in which to serve one's country, there are other options like the Peace Corps (which I will admit, is probably even more valiant than more military), etc.

__________________
My heart will be restless until it finds its final rest. Then they can weigh it...

Dwayne

By making participation in any group a requirment to get elected to a seat of power defies what America stands for.

sailor

I agree. I also think it puts the government at unneccessary risk for a military coup. While not a problem at the moment, when you restrict the position to only those with prior service, the possibility gets much larger.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

Sun Tzu

What about Arnold? Not considering what the founding fathers put forth as being wise; but I think the consitution leaves room for evolution. Not to say having someone serving a requirement would be evolution. The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

So someone with parents that are citizens, but lived for 25 years in Iran, China, etc essentially raised outside of the US and spent 14 years in the US has eligability over someone like Arnold (a person that immigrated here took hold of the "American Dream" and even became govenor of a state. Does this seem an area that needs investigating; that may have not waranted such back at the birth of the consitution?

I also want to say again; Im not stating someone a candidate running that is on active duty.

I served under Bush Senior and the incoming of Clinton. There was significant aparency that CLinton had never served when he stepped in. Excluding all other issues I wont go into-- there were some that would have been better made to a Commander in Chief that had prior experience. IMO

There are numerous civilian roles of power in Congress and the Judicial Branch the balance the power. If a coup ever were to occur its my belief that it would start with an Active Duty officer that holds enormous rank and has earned the respect of an immense percentge of the armed forces. IMO

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Sparhawk

I sometimes feel that immigrants are more American than some of us. Was the only reason they put that 'natural born' clause in there so that Hamilton could never be President? It is old, and long overdue for a change.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

omega2K4

MSD hit the nail on the head.

__________________
"While the State exists there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."- Karl Marx

santafe5000

I'm former military and while it could be helpful, i don't see it should be one of the requirements. Managerial experience it more helpful.

__________________
When all else fails, QUIT.

Locobot

Whoa! I actually agree with ARTele

smitty-nc

I am a reservist (who did 6years active duty). I believe that military service can be benificial, but should not be a requirement for presidency. I do think that the Secretary of Defense should have military experience, specifically as a commanding officer.