Posted on Jul 27, 2014
Should the Commander in Chief have military experience?
26.2K
150
111
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?
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Command
Office of the President (POTUS)
Command Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 10 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
I feel it should be law that all political office members from president on down should have to have served in the military before they can be voted into office. If these people are going to have the power to decide who and when we go to war they should know what it is like to lead in the military. Far too many of our leaders have never served, and neither have their children yet they vote to send ours to war. <div>I recall at the height of the war in 2006 when politicians were considering a draft or mandatory conscription service. However they were silent when asked if their own children would be subject to the requirements of such a requirement.</div><div>A doctor must go to med school before they can legally practice medicine so the president should have to be a veteran before they can be commander in chief.</div>
Responses: 76
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.
Suspended Profile
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suspended Profile
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google