Should the Commander in Chief have military experience?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (Join to see) you cite some great examples and have an excellent point as do you SSgt (Join to see) - 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.