Since the U.S. President is the supreme commander of the U.S. Armed Forces...

[Amenhotep7]

should military service be a requirement for becoming the President of the United States? After all, generally one would feel more content if a man with military experience under his belt before he took the reins of the total U.S. Armed Forces.

I say no, because intermingling military and political ambitions is a dangerous, dangerous thing. Something happens which I like to call "Rubicon Syndrome". Hehe. A Presidential candidate/US Army General gets his army together and crosses the Potomac river, marching on Washington DC and becoming "President for Life" until he gets stabbed on the Ides of March in the US Capitol building. But you can see the danger there...

 

[GenMarshall]

I voted no. I personaly do not want the United States to become a Military Junta (see link for more info about it).

 

[Shadylookin]

No. That's what we have generals and military strategists for. Besides where should be draw the line? just because your in the military doesn't mean you know jack about strategy, I doubt privates are very knowledgeable in military affairs. What about experience, no offense to Mr. Bush but you can't really protect us from the vietnamese in Texas. So should their be a combat experience requirement?

 

[GenMarshall]

No offense to Mr. Bush but you can't really protect us from the vietnamese in Texas. So should their be a combat experience requirement?

I doubt that Bush has even gained any experiance in the military. But that's another conspiricy theory debate for another thread .

 

[MarineCorps]

Um where you talking about currently in the military or retired? Either way I support it. Althrough I'm sure theres something in the UCMJ banning current serivce and politics.

 

[DBear]

Some of our great presidents were never in the military--Lincoln, Reagan, Jefferson...

Some of our worst were--Jackson, Grant, Carter...

If the founders wanted military experience for the President, they'd have said so.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

No, thats what generals are for. What I think should be a requirement, a basic understanding of accounting. Bush and Congress seem to have no sense of balancing a budget.

 

[Nobody]

no but maybe once elected they could go on a month long boot camp or something just so they understand stuff better.

 

[BasketCase]

I vote no, for a purely practical reason:

The supreme commander's job is not to direct the troops around the map and have them attack this city or pillage the tile with oil on it, or whatever. His job is to examine the nation's foreign policy, decide if and when the Big Stick should be taken out of its holster, and if so, swung at whom and how hard. The supreme commander determines what the goals are, and then the troops (their commanding officers, that is) work out the details of how to accomplish those goals.

One guy can't run the whole damn thing--it's too big.

 

[Lord Draegon]

Yeah theirs really no point to it. He doesnt need it, Like BasketCase said He doesntfigure out HOW to do it just if they are going to do it.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I believe that the president should be forced into the army if he starts a war, right in the front lines with the ground infantry.

 

[Lord Draegon]

Yeah

 

[Elrohir]

No way. I'm not against a general becoming President, but it shouldn't be a requirement. That's asking for a military dictatorship.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

When James K. Polk was growing up, he was a sickly lad, a somewhat short, skinny kid that spent most of his time indoors. He wouldn't have lasted a second in the army; he just wouldn't be able to handle the physical burden on his body.

When James K. Polk was President, he led the United States into a war where it absolutely kicked ass, despite often being outnumbered and despite the Mexicans having home-field advantage. James K. Polk conquered almost half of Mexico, and could have taken the whole thing if he wanted to.

And he never spent a day in the military. Didn't seem to make him a worse commander-in-chief, did it?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Also, another key issue is that you generally want civillian control of the military. Having a President who is not ex-military facilitates that. That's why I get annoyed when people attack various Secretaries of Defense that haven't had much military experience; the entire point of having a SecDef is to provide civillian control; for military experience, you have generals.

 

[IglooDame]

I voted no. I personally prefer that they have been in the military, but I don't think it should be mandatory.

 

[Perfection]

He's also the boss of the department of agriculture, must he have been a farmer as well?

 

[Gif Warrior]

Also, another key issue is that you generally want civillian control of the military. Having a President who is not ex-military facilitates that. That's why I get annoyed when people attack various Secretaries of Defense that haven't had much military experience; the entire point of having a SecDef is to provide civillian control; for military experience, you have generals.

I agree with this statement. It was kind of annoying to have a draft dodger (especially when he did an ok job at being president) but military shouldnt be required.

 

[Fetus4188]

The president doesn't do much more then choose which general's plan he wants to go with, give the order to attack, etc., these sorts of things don't really require any military service.

 

[cgannon64]

I'd love to see this, and combine it with the old romantic vision of the leaders going and dying in battle on the front lines. Even if they are like King Sebastian, who died in a very foolish war so anonymously his death wasn't discovered until after the battle.