Should the Commander in Chief have military experience?

SrA Ronald Schwenk Jr — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:18 -0400

This is just a question and not meant to disrespect anybody.
While I was in the Military (1980-88) I served under the Presidents unquestionably.
As a Veteran I often sit and think.
Being Commander in Chief and asking our soldiers to put their life on the line. Shouldn't you have served before asking our Military to do something you never have?
With all due respect. I just believe we should have a Military Requirement before you can be Commander in Chief.
What do you think?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 12:44 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 12:44:42 -0400

I'd have to say "No." The first President without military experience was Adams, the second was Jefferson. It seems to me that they did OK. FDR was pretty successful at leading us through WWII and he had no military experience. Also, is military experience enough, or should it be combat experience? Reagan was never closer to combat than Hollywood - how was that different from having no military service at all? Some pretty questionable Presidents have had military experience - Grant and Carter come to mind. Of course some without military experience have been disastrous, too - Harding comes to mind.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 17 at 2014 7:31 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:31:05 -0400

This is the conundrum I have with this question, How can you have the authority to order military personnel potentially to their deaths - granted that when we signed on the dotted line we knew this could be a possibility - without having any knowledge of what SMs face day in and day out? SCPO Private RallyPoint Member you cite some great examples and have an excellent point as do you SSgt Private RallyPoint Member - Leadership is not solely defined in the military.

In many respects POTUS has advisors in all aspects from finance to policy to military, but inevitably, POTUS's military decisions seem to take the forefront followed very closely by domestic economics and foreign policy. When all is said and done, our orders come from civilians, POTUS being the head one. Personally I'd feel "better" knowing they had some military in their background. Lord knows none of them have been financial wizards. The atomic bomb was ordered dropped by a former Artillery officer turned men's suit salesman so at least that keeps my nerves calm.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 8:41 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 20:41:05 -0400

Should they be required to have military service I don't think so. That is way you surround your self with knowledge by those you appoint. No one has all the answers but the people that surround you might know a few between them. But on the flip side if every abled American served at least two years in one of the services it would end that conundrum of should or should not. If they can't serve in the military then maybe their community the peace corps or something similar. In stead of sitting on their butt expecting something for nothing. I do believe that individuals seeking to be President should have at least two full terms in the House, a term in the Senate or as a Governor before being considered at the minimum. Unfortunately inexperience has showed in a few administrations including our current administration.

Response by MSgt Chris Adams made Aug 19 at 2014 8:11 PM

MSgt Chris Adams — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:11:23 -0400

Would I prefer they had some experience, sure. But I do not expect it. We are a volunteer force and have built ourselves into an elite military because of it. By expecting others to join just so they can fill a box for future endeavors leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The military has a hard enough time screening out folks who can't cut it without adding others who have no care other than to have the bullet on their resume.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 8:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:20:43 -0400

No, I do not think it should be mandatory. To set up such a requirement would be the creation of a martial oligarchy, and I for one think that would be contrary to the most basic fundamentals that make me proud to be an American. Any natural born citizen who wants to run for office should be entitled to do so, and the people will be the decider of whether they are fit for the job.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 1:23 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:23:42 -0400

Wow, that was a long time ago, but my answer to your current question. I do believe that as a President you should have served in the military. Otherwise how can you have any kind of experience in leading others. Knowing what discipline is, and knowing that what decisions you make will affect thousands of men and women in the military. While on this particular subject, I serve my country, I follow all orders given to me without question. While at times it can be very frustrating. It has always allowed me to learn to adapt, to be flexible and learn a more efficient way of accomplishing my assigned tasks and duties.

Response by SGT Robert Donaldson made Sep 4 at 2014 10:21 PM

SGT Robert Donaldson — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:21:56 -0400

I think the President should have been an Executive-business owner, employer, Governor, Mayor, veteran or related aspect. If you don't have this experience, you don't know how to lead, or motivate people. True there are advisors-in the end, they are just that, the President has to make the final decision. Also there are far too many Presidents, who cannot simply provide the objectives and strategy and let the military do their job-but insist on micromanaging everything. You get less of this type of personality with an experienced leader than with someone without this experience.

Response by SP5 Terry Pool made Oct 22 at 2014 4:18 AM

SP5 Terry Pool — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 04:18:13 -0400

I absolutely agree with you SrA Schwenk Jr.! If you are going to command the entire armed forces, shouldn't you have at least some sort of working knowledge on how the military is run and how it operates? It's just like any other job......I wouldn't ask some else to do anything that I either haven't done or am not willing to do! I do feel I have a right to ask something of someone if I have at one time or still am doing the very thing that I am requesting the individual to do.....that means in civilian life or especially in the armed forces! I think that overall, the best commanders-in-chief have been those who have at least some military experience or have the common sense to listen to their senior military officers who have been in battle!

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Oct 23 at 2014 9:09 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:09:37 -0400

hell fucking yes.......................................................that means you got to swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states...

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 24 at 2014 4:41 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:41:34 -0400

Yes

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2014 3:33 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:33:29 -0400

After my service I thought about this and have to agree with you. Having experience in the military is a lot better than just reading or observing. Especially if you are suppose to be Commander-in-Chief.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2014 5:02 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:02:20 -0400

I think most of us in the Military will agree on this one. For anyone that thinks this could somehow lead to some flawed bias, I think that is really something that we do not need to worry about, most servicemembers do hold themselves to a higher standard in some sort or fashion, I am convinced that this would make itself present in the professionalism and ethics of someone working in Office.

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Oct 31 at 2014 10:01 AM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:01:38 -0400

It should be MANDATORY for the Commander in Chief to have Military experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
So he or she would have some military bearing and a sense of how the military operates, but should heavily rely on his or her top military advisers, and let them do their job WITHOUT micro managing them!!!!!!!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 5:40 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:40:16 -0400

Yes..however, we'd have to change the requirements for President. And we'd have to better define "experience". Actual combat experience--where someone is trying to kill you and you try to kill them instead sounds more legitimate than being a desk jockey at camp podunk. Similarly, serving in a combat zone might have more credibility than working at the PX or entertainment services. At a minimum, some form of national service--service beyond self is what I look for...

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Dec 23 at 2014 2:30 AM

SGT Michael Glenn — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:30:56 -0500

Yes who ever it is setting in that office should !!! they are making decisions that arent their own, but someone is counseling them on what to do and what not to do, this takes time and time may or may not be of the essence in any given situation so they need to know their stuff. Just a thought.....

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 23 at 2014 11:57 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 23:57:22 -0500

Yep.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Jan 28 at 2015 2:52 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:52:50 -0500

It would be nice to have a POTUS with experience but we shouldn't be a pre-req. There are many countries that have generals who became Presidents and essentially had a military run government. What separates the US from these countries is the civilian control over the military.

Having said that, since the military plays such a large role in the world, experience is paramount. What I believe is that the POTUS have experienced people around him. His Chiefs of staff, top generals, SecDef, SecAd, etc are there to help.

The POTUS is still one person, and even if he or she has all the experience in the world, if the person around are not, it won't make a difference. The best leaders have smarter people around him or her.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jan 28 at 2015 3:20 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:20:54 -0500

Call me OCD, but look at that nasty looking salute the Airman is giving the POTUS. Even Reagan's salute is more crisp than that, lol.

But yes, in the perfect world I would expect the POTUS to have military experience. Head coaches have to have experience in their respected sports. CEOs have to have experience in their respective fields, eye. So if POTUS wants to be CiC, then he should have experience in the military.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 5:10 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:10:54 -0500

Yes, I believe they should because how else can they base decisions concerning the military when they don't have a clue what its like to do the kind of work we do. I think Congress should as well for that matter. You wouldn't hire someone who's never built a skyscraper that has only managed restaurants would you?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 5:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:34:30 -0500

It would be nice in a perfect world but where do we draw the line? There are a number of service members (no offense) that have served and not seen the results of war first hand. So do we refine it to having served in combat or even been in combat? I wouldn't say that being in the air national guard or an operator is any more or less qualified to lead a nation than the other. And how about those that serve at home (police, firemen, emt's). How about those not qualified to serve? Now we've ruled out anyone born with an illness that they have no control over. This becomes a slippery slope. And as far as mandatory service, it's just not possible in our nation. Only roughly 30% of these kids aren't qualified for the military based off of mental, moral, and physical qualifications. If that 30% served we are looking at a military roughly 10 million strong at all times. Now figure in the expenses of all those troops. Financial and logistical nightmare.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Feb 2 at 2015 1:10 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:10:42 -0500

It's not required, but it's definitely a plus. All other things equal, I would pick the candidate with military background.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2015 2:26 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:26:07 -0500

I agree. I believe having served should be a prerequisite. Another thing that should be a prerequisite is to qualify for a top secret clearance on their own dime. If they can't qualify for a top secret clearance, they don't belong in the job.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(cough, bill ayers)

-Involvement in any act whose aim is to overthrow the Government of the United States or alter the form of government by unconstitutional means;

-Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

-Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate the overthrow of the United States Government, or any state or subdivision, by force or violence or by other unconstitutional means;

-Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice the prevention of others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

Eligibility Guidelines for Gaining Security Clearance

How are you judged to be eligible for security clearance? Read up on the major guidelines that you should follow.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 3:33 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:33:34 -0500

I do not think military service should be required to be president. Several presidents have done well without it. Also, it's important to note that congress, not the president, can declare war. In my opinion modern presidents have far too often side stepped congress by deploying the military without actually declaring war, in fact the last time America declared war in occurrence with our own Constitution was WWII.
This leads me to an interesting conversation I recently had with a first class in my command. How do you legally declare war on IS? It isn't a country or a legally defined political entity of any kind, therefore who has the authority to sign the treaty ending hostilities?

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Feb 4 at 2015 8:19 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:19:03 -0500

It would be very nice if our "So called Leaders" including POTUS had military service. BUT, and this is a big one - the Framers of the Constitution didn't mandate that. So, legally there is no way to require it...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 8:27 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:27:57 -0500

It is an interesting question. As commander in chief they have to have a good enough understanding to know, at least, good advice from bad, and that *shouldn't* be a problem, or at least be less of a problem, for a president that has at least been exposed to the military life.

At the same time, I can point to a number of our military experienced chief executives of the past who have not been especially good at the job--even if narrowed down to only the commander in chief aspect. I can also point to a number of purely civilian presidents who were much better at both military questions as well as the rest of the package.

I will say this for certain--because the president must be commander in chief, a pacifist--someone would would eschew military force--is by implication unqualified to be president--but that doesn't seem to have ever been a problem.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 12:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 12:19:04 -0500

Civilian control of the military was designed on purpose in the Constitution. Military experience is not necessary, that is why there are advisors (JCS) who are experts. Otherwise as soon as military experience became necessary, then it would turn into a degree of how much and what type of experience. Does a 2 year E3 have enough experience? Does a 6 year O3 have the right credentials? What branch is important? What job or positions of experience.

No, military experience is not important. The same reason officers don't need to have enlisted experience because they have enlisted advisors.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 1:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:26:56 -0500

No.
First, POTUS must be empathetic. The capacity to empathize means the ability to to identify with and understand somebody else's feelings or difficulties.

Second, with an all volunteer army, fewer people will have served. Many of our POTUS who served were were part of large campaigns.

Third, a couple of the POTUS who had no military experience were Wilson and FDR - we seem to have done OK in WW II. Lincoln did have very minor military experience (one month) and he seems to have managed in the Civil War.

Fourth, anyone who doesn't understand how chaotic and cruel war can be is a MORON. You don’t have to be punched in the face to understand you don’t want to be punched in the face.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 1:51 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:51:16 -0500

No, I don't think a military background is required to serve as President.
I spent 13 years active duty, just transitioned to Guard, and I've seen plenty of NCOs and Officers who are great and keep both the mission and their people at the front of their minds when making decisions. I've also seen plenty of both who are self-serving or suffer from tunnel vision who are blind to the needs of those they are appointed to lead.
Military service is an honorable thing and it can provide an instant bond with a stranger, but it encompasses so many different things that it's a stretch to say that someone who has served has any idea of the bigger picture a Commander in Chief must have.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 2:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:13:43 -0500

Good question. I think the best case made for this is in the book 'Starship Troopers'. Don't let the movie scare you, the only thing in common between the movie and the book is the name. The book is excellent and addresses the question that you have raised and carries it even farther to citizenship as well. The dynamics have far reaching effects.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 2:51 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:51:24 -0500

As MAJ Chang stated, the civil-military relationship we enjoy in the United States is there for a reason. It is a form of checks and balances and, though Clausewitz points out that war is a continuation of politics by other means, civilian leadership and military leadership have different jobs to do. The POTUS does not require military experience to make military decisions. He is under advisement by people with a host of experience. Check out Eliot Cohen's book, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leaders in Wartime, for an in-depth analysis of the civil-military relationship through case studies which include Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 3:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:15:43 -0500

Yes

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Feb 5 at 2015 3:23 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:23:50 -0500

The President is the "Commander in Chief" so why not require him to have served in the military. You wouldn't put a civilian with no training in command of a Battalion. If nothing else, it provides a sense of belonging knowing he has been down that road so to speak.

Response by SFC Terry Fortune made Feb 5 at 2015 3:28 PM

SFC Terry Fortune — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:28:07 -0500

I whole hearty agree! The CinC should have military experience.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Feb 5 at 2015 3:48 PM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:48:08 -0500

I think it's a plus but definitely not necessary. We don't necessarily look for "military" skills, but more for skills that the military tries to instill in people. Planning, Organizing and Execution.

Unfortunately I think with the current dude, we don't see much back bone- rather, the result of putting an academic, or "intellectual" in a leadership role. You don't need that nonsense - I would argue that philosophers make the worst leaders because they simply can't make solid black and white decisions.

So it's a plus to have it simply because it does give a person better chances they're voting for a truly type a, organized well polished leader.

But at the end of the day, just because one is/were in the military doesn't preclude them from being a retard or complete piece o shit.

Response by PO1 George Perry made Feb 5 at 2015 9:15 PM

PO1 George Perry — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:15:30 -0500

It wouldn't hurt to have a potus that has served, but the whole idea is that they a civilians. I just want them to respect the service. Unfortunately some of them have not

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 10:53 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:53:03 -0500

I actually prefer the President to not have prior experience because unless they were past general officers, there would be natural tendency to defer to the 4-star general/flag officers advising you. I like my Presidents to be independent minded and willing to push back against military advisors.

If Kennedy had taken Gen LeMays advice to invade Cuba, it's a real possibility that the US would have had a nuclear attack on the mainland.

Response by MSG Scott McBride made Feb 5 at 2015 10:54 PM

MSG Scott McBride — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:54:49 -0500

Yes. I have always believed that and will always stand by that.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 8:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:14:16 -0500

I guess my response would be that we are taught to lead from the front, by example. I have often pondered this question as well and I would have more confidence in a leader that has walked the walk and knows the true gravity of what he or she is asking others to do. We are taught as leaders to not ask our people to do something we are not willing to do ourselves. So I believe military experience should be a prerequisite.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 1:15 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 01:15:30 -0500

This question seems to come up a lot, and while I absolutely agree that the president should have some form of military service in his background I would go one step further and suggest our congressmen, senators and governors should as well.

Our country was a much better place when those that had actually served for the country populated the legislative floor expected to lead this country.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 10:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:21:29 -0500

I know our first Commander-In-Chief was military. There have been numerous C-I-Cs since him. I think it would be a nice touch. Surely he would understand the high office from a military perspective.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 1:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:02:55 -0500

The Commander in Chief should have military experience. All Americans should not be required to serve. We are not a country of war and if everyone served then we would no longer be a step above and apart from those that do not chose to serve their country and many are simply not fit to do so.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 12:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:44:24 -0400

Yes you need to understand what we go through to be am effective leader

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 5:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:40:35 -0400

I think it should make him a better Commander in Chief, but at the same notion, that is why he has the advisors that he does. It enables him to make the decisions with all of the information that he does.

Much like a lot of people feel a prior enlisted officer is better, and I tend to agree, that is not always the case.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 10:22 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:22:47 -0400

Absolutely YES. If they gained nothing else from serving in the military they would at least have some first hand experience and hopefully understanding.

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made May 13 at 2015 10:30 PM

SPC Eddie Espejo — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:30:21 -0400

ABSOLUTELY without a doubt otherwise how can they be called commanders?? you have to know how to follow before you can lead not just jump right Into a position without knowing anything about it. whatever happened to having the nessessary skills to be effective these days??

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made May 13 at 2015 10:33 PM

SPC Eddie Espejo — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:33:45 -0400

would you let someone take the steering wheel if they didnt know how to drive?

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made May 13 at 2015 10:35 PM

SPC Eddie Espejo — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:35:48 -0400

its like being handed an uzi without the discipline to attain it. I dont know how they are allowed to get away with it.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 13 at 2015 10:46 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:46:01 -0400

We've had POTUS who have had military experience but were terrible presidents Andrew Jackson and US Grant are good examples.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 10:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:49:39 -0400

That would be a, "Heck Yes"!

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 14 at 2015 12:32 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Thu, 14 May 2015 12:32:47 -0400

It isn't or shouldn't be necessary, but it would help if they did. Maybe, just maybe, the military budget, benefits and retirees wouldn't get hammered every year like they have been for so many years.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made May 14 at 2015 5:40 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Thu, 14 May 2015 17:40:40 -0400

I agree with you 100%! Also, NO sealed records.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 8:52 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 08:52:39 -0400

No. It makes you feel like the CiC understands you as a service member but by no means should it be a prerequisite. Keep in mind also that not all military "experiences" are equal. Some never leave an office, others live in the field. That's why the president has military advisors (hopefully they're the best in the business). People like the late Steve Jobs aren't great because they know everything; they just surround themselves with experts. Common sense goes a long way too.

Response by SGT David T. made May 15 at 2015 9:07 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 15 May 2015 09:07:42 -0400

I respectfully disagree. My M.A. is in Military History with a concentration in the Revolutionary Era. Through my studies, I read a great deal of material that the founders wrote. They had a very strong fear of a standing army potentially being misused against the public. As a way to help prevent that from happening they devised the idea of civilian control of the military. I think this is very important and at the very core of what our army stands for. While I think that military experience is helpful, it isn't required to be effective. That is why POTUS has the Secretaries and the Joint Chiefs.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 9:16 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 May 2015 09:16:09 -0400

No. There's a reason we have the Defense Secretary and the Secretaries of the services, as well as the Joint Chiefs. Our nation is meant to be run by civilians, with the armed services being nothing more than a tool of the nation's bidding. I'd rather see a President with solid domestic policies and a mindset that precludes military action unless it's absolutely necessary. You don't need military experience to do those things.

The President is also head of the Executive Branch; should being an executive with veto power be a prerequisite? That would preclude almost anybody who wasn't a Governor.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 1:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:07:11 -0400

I feel that they should have some form of military experience, at minimum 1 enlistment or a period of commissioning. To have some form of understanding on how the military works from the inside and the sacrifices that are made. There is only so much you can see from the outside looking in.
I think if you are expected to make decisions on the military's use the POTUS would have an advantage having served and knowing what its like to be that position.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 12:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 12:51:50 -0400

I say no. And if so then just promote a **** to ***** and call it a day. No more voting just promotions.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2015 12:55 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 May 2015 12:55:06 -0400

Mandatory? No. Does it add invaluable experience and understanding of course it does. That's why as a nation we should vote and empower our representatives to favor those who have served.

Response by SPC James Fie made May 29 at 2015 12:23 AM

SPC James Fie — Fri, 29 May 2015 00:23:59 -0400

George Washington did. Did Thomas Jefferson, John Adams or John Quincy Adams?

The President has never been in the military AT THE TIME that he was President. Not Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or ANY of the others. Most had never been, at all.

But that is why they have the War Dept/Dept of Defense, the secretaries of the various services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all the other commissioned and noncommissioned officers. To both advise the President and to carry out his ORDERS, once they're given.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 4:14 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:14:43 -0400

I believe they absolutely should. How can you lead a military that you know nothing about? Will I ever speak out against my CIC, regardless of who it is? No. But do I think that armed service should be mandated for the position, to better the future and effectiveness of the military and the country? Absolutely.

Response by Sgt Cody Dumont made May 29 at 2015 4:20 PM

Sgt Cody Dumont — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:20:27 -0400

I agree with you.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 3:10 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 03:10:04 -0400

Forced military experience perhaps not, as other people here have stated that that can become more of a martial oligarchy than a representative democracy. I do however think that the commander in chief should unequivocally have to go through some form of basic military training, if you are going to send men and women to war you should have to know what it is that they must go through, and have a basic understanding of military structure, just my opinion however.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 10:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:53:49 -0400

Thought: No Presidents served in combat in Korea, Vietnam, and so far, in the Middle Eastern Wars.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 9 at 2015 7:57 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 07:57:40 -0400

NO! While I love some of the Military Men that have become President I am well aware of how easily that can become a Fascist Military Dictatorship. We need not look further that our neighbors in Central and South America to see how that can turn out and we are dealing with the Ramifications of that with the "Illegal" Aliens fleeing there to here to escape the Turmoil that created.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2015 8:00 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:00:44 -0400

I think it is important that the President be well-versed and well-invested in the American experience. They should have lived long enough to have gained wisdom through experience, worked hard not only to achieve goals, but maintained a level of success, and yes...spent enough time in the uniform to understand and appreciate the challenges therein.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Sep 10 at 2015 12:55 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:55:46 -0400

I feel that military service in leadership roles will help the potential President deal with military matters as well as non-military matters, but even those who never served can make the critical decisions.
I think more than anything else a President needs the best advisors that he can find and lately our Presidents have not had the best advisors.
The President ends up making those decisions, just like in WWII to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I am sure he got more advice than he could ever use on that decision but ultimately he made that decision and it worked out to end the war at a supreme cost of lives.
I don't like how President Obama conducts business but I do applaud him on giving the green light on the bin Laden mission. Many people think it was a no brainer but there are more factors to decisions than the average person who has never served can imagine.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 8:33 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:33:05 -0400

NO, but there should definitely be a moral and intellectual test since C-in-C is basically an officer. Such a requirement would have spared the US from the likes of Reagan and GW Bush nearly destroying this nation, its economy and its society.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Oct 18 at 2015 4:28 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 04:28:37 -0400

Not a Constitutional requirement, but highly recommended that voters step in and factor the candidate's military experience in with their decision making... All other things equal, you would want to pick the candidate with the military background.

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Nov 5 at 2015 12:29 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:29:22 -0500

yes

Response by SGT Bryan O'Reilly made Nov 6 at 2015 2:32 AM

SGT Bryan O'Reilly — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 02:32:20 -0500

In any job I know of the first several months are spent learning duties, goals, developing relationships and acclimation.The presidency is not for OJT We need a POTUS who is ready to be commander-in-chief on day #1 Not some well intended boot who runs to supply when my smart ass gunner tells him to go fetch us a box of grid squares and some leveling bubbles.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Dec 2 at 2015 8:50 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 20:50:32 -0500

No. Not a constitutional requirement. However, would I be more likely to give say a Seth Moulten a hard look if he was to run? You bet.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 11:23 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:23:29 -0500

I like that idea that the Commander in Chief would have experience in the military, but I don't think it should be a requirement. on the other hand I think that the Defense Secretary should be required to have served. and to boot, the Service Secretaries as well.

Response by CWO2 Mario Vittone made Dec 18 at 2015 7:10 AM

CWO2 Mario Vittone — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:10:49 -0500

The Commander in Chief also is the President of course, so should he or she also be required to have experience with other 14 executive departments in his or her cabinet? The DoD is just one aspect of the job. If we were to insist that the president have military experience to lead the military, shouldn't he also have agricultural experience, housing, education, transportation, etc.? It's just not a meaningful metric to gauge one's ability to be (or not be) the President. There was absolutely nothing about any tour of duty I ever served that prepared me to give orders to Generals and Admirals.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 28 at 2016 6:23 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:23:24 -0500

Not necessarily LTC Jason Bartlett. While military experience can be beneficial, unimpeachable character and wisdom in terms of international affairs is much more important.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Feb 28 at 2016 6:37 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:37:36 -0500

no, but he should have REAL leadership experiences, political "leadership" doesn't cut it!

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Feb 28 at 2016 6:43 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:43:05 -0500

I agree with the others, military service is a plus, but the American voter should be allowed to vote for his preferred candidate and not be limited to a small subset of the population. President FDR did just fine guiding our country through WWII, as did President Woodrow Wilson in WWI. One of my favorite Presidents, Thomas Jefferson... author of the US Declaration of Independence, and contributor to some of our most preciously safeguarded rights, had no military service other than an effectively honorary commission. Meanwhile, Richard Nixon served in WWII and I don't know if that helped him in Vietnam. In short, I believe the American voter should have the freedom to vote for who he or she feels can best lead this great nation.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2016 7:00 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:00:30 -0500

Sir, it would be great, but not a requirement.