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
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.
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.
1SG Scott MacGregor
yes
SSG Buddy Kemper
1SG Scott MacGregor Seriously, tho, Top. Only Clinton and Obama have not served in recent history, right?
CPT (Join to see)
His decisions should be about direction for the country, brother. So I would say that IF he's willing to listen to his generals and take their guidance, then no he doesn't have to be prior military. It certainly couldn't hurt though.
SSG Buddy Kemper
Agreed, Sir. I'd rather him (or eventually her?) be willing to listen to Senior leaders and get consensus from Joint Chiefs than have served if it came down between the two.
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.
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.
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.
I say no. And if so then just promote a **** to ***** and call it a day. No more voting just promotions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google