Should the President and elected officals with the power to send our sons and daughters to war be required to have served in the military?

2014-01-17T19:07:01-05:00

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>

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 12:30 AM

2014-01-21T00:30:33-05:00

SFC Grudzinski, I understand and sympathize with the sentiment. However, given the current slate of potential presidential candidates, I'm not certain it would be the most effective law.

Response by 2ndLt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 12:48 AM

2014-01-21T00:48:59-05:00

SFC Grudzinski, I also understand that sentiment, but military service doesn't guarantee sound military judgment in a Commander in Chief.  Plus, some of our greatest war time Presidents have never served in the military (Lincoln and Roosevelt never served).  President Kennedy was a decorated WWII veteran and oversaw one of the greatest military blunders of the Cold War (The Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba), then turned around and went against the advice of the Joint Chiefs and decided not to launch a preemptive strike on Cuba during the Missile Crisis.  The President needs to be an effective administrator.  Military matters are only one part of the job.  This is why we have the Joint Chiefs and a National Security Council to advise the President on matters that he might not have first-hand experience in.  The President also deals with national intelligence and diplomatic affairs, but no one says that the President needs to be a CIA officer of Foreign Service Officer as a pre-requisite for becoming President.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 1:47 AM

2014-01-21T01:47:37-05:00

<p>While it is a noble idea, I would never want to exclude a brilliant mind who might be physically unfit for Military due to any number of physical ailments, from positively impacting our troops. </p><p> </p><p>The ability to effectively lead is not reserved solely for those in the military and I believe that excluding leaders who have not served would be a mistake.</p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 4:42 AM

2014-01-21T04:42:06-05:00

I'd like politicians to have served. As was stated by LT Matthews, I wouldn't want to exclude a powerful mind that is physically unable.

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Jan 21 at 2014 7:11 AM

2014-01-21T07:11:52-05:00

There are many complex issues that effect the American people. One of those is the current economy consisting in high unemployment numbers, increasing inflation, more part-time jobs being created over full-time jobs, etc. What does having served in the military have to do with fixing the economy? How does having served in the military have any bearing on making someone more knowledgeable in the areas that affect most Americans? It doesn't.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Apr 15 at 2014 12:18 PM

2014-04-15T12:18:05-04:00

As much as I agree with you that the President and political office holders should be veterans who have served in the uniformed services, I would disagree for the simple reason that our nation is a democratic republic, and that the dream of a small physically disabled child born in the United States can aspire to become someday a House member, US Senator or US Congressman or even President of the United States.

We, that have served and continually to serve, have made our choices. Let us celebrate our choice of vocation without reprisal, hate or malice to those who are not like us, yet are saturated in curiosity of who we are; Sailor, Soldier, Airman, Marine, Coastie...we are the uniformed services.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2014 12:21 PM

2014-04-15T12:21:48-04:00

Bad idea, and undoubtedly unconstitutional.  Consider this historic example; many may disagree with his New Deal politics, but FDR would be excluded.  He was one of our nation's few leaders in the 30s to foresee the threat the Nazis posed.<br>

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 15 at 2014 1:15 PM

2014-04-15T13:15:29-04:00

No. They are already applying or working to serve our country. Military service should never be a requirement in a free society for a position like that. It is the right of the people to run for office and become a part of the political system, that's the whole point of a Republic. We have minimum age requirements... I wish we had education requirements, but that too would be, in my opinion, inviolate of the Constitution and its principles.

We are a civilian-run military. Washington had a large part in ensuring that was the case. The Congress has the ability to send us to war, but they do so with a great deal of consideration. Some might not care that they are sending Troops into battle... but I don't think that is even a fraction of a percent. I am completely opposed to requiring miltary service to serve as CiC. No way. It's completely against our principles of government. We have had a lot of veterans serve as the President, but it is and should never be a requirement. We must remember that there are many ways to serve our country. We are in uniform, their uniform is a suit and tie (& female equivalent). We can't discount their service just because they haven't experienced what we have.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Apr 15 at 2014 1:57 PM

2014-04-15T13:57:16-04:00

Not required, but it should be indicated. Perhaps it would be better for the voters to consider when voting for a qualified leader. (Emphasis on qualified!)

Response by SSG Mark Ives made Apr 15 at 2014 3:00 PM

2014-04-15T15:00:20-04:00

To take it a step further would be what Robert Heinlein had suggested in his novel 'Starship Troopers', in order to be a full fledged citizen, one would have to have served their country.  I'd take a WAG (not researching percent of who has served still living) that less than 5% of our population would be citizens then.  

Response by SGT John Phillips made Apr 15 at 2014 8:28 PM

2014-04-15T20:28:29-04:00

No it shouldn't be law. The office of President should remain open to all Citizens regardless of military service. The people elect the President into office, if this was a major concern for the majority, it would result in only Veterans being elected. I do think there needs to be a massive campaign overhaul though. Something done to level the playing field for candidates. Money seems dictate the victor, whoever spends the most usually wins. Not sure how it could be fixed, I've often thought maybe stopping all campaign fundraising and giving equal airtime to each candidate, let every candidates ideas and beliefs be heard. It will never happen, but it sure would be nice to have an election where the candidates actually talk about issues and not talking points pushed by lobbyists.

Response by SGT Kenneth Meador made Apr 16 at 2014 7:26 AM

2014-04-16T07:26:08-04:00

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2014 9:33 AM

2014-04-16T09:33:17-04:00

SFC, I felt the same way for a long time. Our political leaders can make decisions on a subject that they could have no experience in. They can declare war and send us anywhere in the world to fight it but have no idea what it actually takes on the ground to make it happen. They see numbers, we see Soldiers. I do believe and would very much like it if every one of our political leaders had served even one tour in some branch of the military. However, I think making that a law is not the best idea. Some of our best political leaders have never put their feet in a pair of combat boots. Being in the military, even as a private, gives you an idea of how our system works. Chain of command, military movements, esprit de corps, motivations, ideals, etc. This would make all of our political leaders think in about the same way. That could also be the problem. I love the military and I would not do anything else with my life but serve in it, but if we had all of our leaders, both military and political, thinking and working in the exact same way when we encountered an issue there would be no one thinking outside the box on how to overcome it.

With all of that said. I would be most likely to vote for the candidate that has military experience over any other.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made May 6 at 2014 1:13 AM

2014-05-06T01:13:40-04:00

I would answer: No

When we took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, did we really and truely understand this impact? I would say "no"...how many of us really know the U.S Constitution? Oh...we get the main parts, the parts that we can understand but there are 2 more documents that are in concert with...The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

...and because of these 3 documents, written by our forefathers who had the insight that maybe someday their efforts would not be in vain. These men who wrote the Constitution and signed it, were not all prior military but farmers and landowners who were very well educated. They shared the same vision...

Representing their society, they all put their lives and their families lives on the line in the hope of being free men.

They were hunted down by the British.

Today,our country is still a beacon of hope around the globe and setting an example of our Republic and Democratic process.

President Harry Truman relieved General MaCarthur. Truman was not a military man, however, he knew how to run a business.

Truman had the vision of a limited war with Korea, with no Chinese intervention. General MaCarthur was a Soldier and had the vision of taking the fight to China. When the Chinese came down to the Northern Korea, they pushed the UN, United Nations and allies back down to Southern Korea. Consequently, the General was relieved.

This was a case of broken vision between 2 leaders.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2014 1:36 AM

2014-05-06T01:36:36-04:00

Agreed, anybody holding a political office with more authority thatn a mayor should have to be a veteran. I'd be down with Starship Trooper rules: you don't serve, you aren't a full fledged citizen and you don't get to vote or qualify for any sort of benefit.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 22 at 2014 1:44 PM

2014-06-22T13:44:16-04:00

No...
All but 12 have served in some capacity, so such a rule would only eliminate roughly 27% of our past presidents.
That list includes:
Clinton, Obama, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Cleveland, Van Buren, John Adams and J.Q. Adams.

Is that group you have important presidents and duds.

So, most of our presidents have served, a few that didn't were great non-the-less, many that did were still terrible.

A president should have some sort of basic understanding of foreign policy, but enforcing that is the voters' job.
A job that some among us are not that well suited for.

Response by SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau made Jun 22 at 2014 1:48 PM

2014-06-22T13:48:23-04:00

I think it is a positive thing that the overall military commander is a civilian. As long as the president has military advisers, it is not important for him/her to have served in the military.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 1:52 PM

2014-06-22T13:52:24-04:00

Hell yes!! Those that don't have little knowledge and respect for what we do, little knowledge and respect for the history and reasons for global conflicts, and are totally clueless on global conflict resolution. Yes, they can surround themselves with smart people who are knowledgeable about the military and it's capabilities, but they still seem to make stupid decisions when it comes to military related issues. An example of those issues: Not attending security intelligence briefings, using military pay as a pawn for your budget negotiations, screwing with our healthcare and retirement benefits to force us to pay for your healthcare program instead.........

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 22 at 2014 1:52 PM

2014-06-22T13:52:26-04:00

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20140217presidents-best-worst-america-prog.html

This list of 10 best includes 9 that were veterans but the top 1 was not.
Their 5 worst were all veterans but one.

90% of top 10.
80% of bottom 10.
So with 73% of total, we had higher representation in both best and worst.
(According to one site).

The 10 best (and 5 worst) American presidents

The 10 best (and 5 worst) American presidents,The 10 best and five worst American presidents, according to a 2010 poll of presidential scholars.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 22 at 2014 1:55 PM

2014-06-22T13:55:38-04:00

I don't think it should be a requirement, but I do prefer candidates who have executive leadership experience. The military isn't the only venue that gives that. CEO of a business, mayor, governor, does. However, being in Congress DOESN'T.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 22 at 2014 2:22 PM

2014-06-22T14:22:00-04:00

A conglomeration of several polls finds veterans making up 10/11 of the bottom quartile. (91%), disproportionately high share.
Veterans make up 7/11 (64%) of the 3rd quartile, so non-vets have a disproportionately high share here.
Veterans make up only 6/11 (54%) of the 2nd quartile, so non-vets once again have a disproportionally high share.
And in the top quartile, vets have a 9/11 presence (82%).

So veterans have a higher showing when adjusted for percentage of population in the top and bottom quartiles.

Draw your conclusions...

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political science, historical rankings of Presidents of the United States are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults.[1][2][3]

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 2:53 PM

2014-06-22T14:53:37-04:00

No.

I know this is an unpopular opinion among us, but here is why I believe no.

I believe the CIC should not actually be the President. The Secretary of Defense should be the CIC of the Armed forces and that position should be held by someone with prior military service. The president should have some oversight obviously, but then he should leave most of the "burden" on the SECDEF.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 4:11 PM

2014-06-22T16:11:13-04:00

No, no, and NO!!! Like LTC Labrador stated, I prefer candidates who have some executive leadership experience. This can come from being a governor, CEO, or mayor. I also prefer those who have decent character, can be honest about their beliefs, have a record to back up those beliefs, and have good ideas for the country's future. I truly believe the executive experience is a must. For example, think of whatever business/company you are working in. Would you want some low level employee to all of a sudden become the top senior leader?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 5:06 PM

2014-06-22T17:06:48-04:00

This question is posed every election. I can't even remember the last President who had "real" military experience. I think I would agree with LTC Labrador with the candidates having some type of executive experience. Congress doesn't count and being a Senator just barely gets you in the door. Although we want the President to have military experience I think our society is moving in a direction where it doesn't matter. The country's sentiment is now no more war, so almost every politician is beating the same drum.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 6:44 PM

2014-06-22T18:44:26-04:00

No it shouldn't be a requirement, but having some service would be beneficial. In the past, some military personnel were able to pull off being President but that was due to where our country was in it's development. Nowadays, our country needs a President who has more than just military experience. They need to have the skills demonstrated by the more successful governors in our country and some of the senior executives of global corporations. We could delve into this more deeply by asking the question, what qualifications should the next President have?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 22 at 2014 8:01 PM

2014-06-22T20:01:00-04:00

No, It is nice if they have some but I really don't see the need. Also from those that served not all served in "Combat" positions. Tricky Dick Nixon was a Navy Lawyer. Jimmy Carter was a Nuclear Submarine Officer. Now give them hell Harry served on the front line in WWI but if you looked at all of them that would be a rare thing.

Response by MSG(P) Michael Warrick made Jun 22 at 2014 11:16 PM

2014-06-22T23:16:40-04:00

Absolutely, Yes it should be a requirement to become President. How can one be a Commander in Chief and have never served in the Armed Forces! Why do you think our military is being cut down and getting no budget to operate or train. It is because our current President does not understand the military way of life and what it need to operate and train to be the best in the world!

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jun 24 at 2014 10:10 PM

2014-06-24T22:10:32-04:00

I sometimes wonder if perhaps citizenship should be earned like in the movie Starship Troopers. So many of our people take everything for granted and choose to be uninformed when they vote. Most of the people born in the USA would even pass the test we give emmigents for Citizenship. Our population can tell you all about the affairs of sports stars and celebs but choose to be ignorant on important issues. These same people cancel out the votes of the voter who pays attention to what really matters, So I think Candidates for our top Offices should have Served in the Military.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2014 2:47 PM

2014-06-27T14:47:22-04:00

I would like to see this expanded from just the military to federal/civil service. There are many ways that people may serve which does not involve the military. For those who are so mined, there is conservation corps, peace corps etc., where your time can be given in service to others. I think that what we are trying to say, or at least what I believe is that we want our elected officials to have some framework of service and sacrifice before making decisions which would not affect them.

Response by SFC Russell Campbell made Jul 6 at 2014 5:56 AM

2014-07-06T05:56:18-04:00

Absolutely!!

Response by Cpl Philip "Heathen" Laster made Jul 6 at 2014 10:30 PM

2014-07-06T22:30:46-04:00

In my opinion, I think yes, it should be a requirement. Maybe not required to have deployed, or even differentiate between active or reserve. But I do think that if one is to take on the responsibilities of "Commander in Chief", one should be familiar with what exactly that entails. And I think it would give a better perspective of what the actions taken as "Commander in Chief" have affect on not only our military but also on America as a whole. I also think it will better engrain within them the spirit of true American Patriotism.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Jul 7 at 2014 5:12 PM

2014-07-07T17:12:47-04:00

Yes, I totally agree, the President should have a Military Background. Any position that makes the decision to send young men into combat, should be have first hand knowledge of what is expected. One of the rules of leadership is, do not ask your subordinates to do something, you yourself is not willing to do... They will also have a code of honor, and know what is meant by selfless service, integrity, honor. They would know the difference between fraternizing with the enemy and diplomacy. A CEO of a corporation only knows of the bottom line, not of leadership, and should never be a part of politics. The Military knows Mission first and getting the task done.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 2:44 PM

2014-07-09T14:44:58-04:00

No, not a requirement. They are giving their public service by running for president, just as the congress. Now reality of things, we need Leaders in office and not lobby pleasers.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 9 at 2014 2:47 PM

2014-07-09T14:47:37-04:00

I see an honorable list there. What I deem as some of the weaker leaders seem to be missing from this table. Interesting.... And maybe not so surprising.

Response by 1LT Remmel Blevins made Jul 9 at 2014 4:17 PM

2014-07-09T16:17:19-04:00

Nope. The founding fathers were wise

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 9:36 PM

2014-07-09T21:36:41-04:00

The beauty of our political system is that we do not need our president to have served in the military, but as service members, we have the choice to vote for candidates who have if we so desire.

Perhaps the better question is not should the president have completed military service, but what must be done to get more current and former service members to run for office so they can get the experience necessary to become strong presidential candidates?

Some may remember the Veterans Party which gained some popularity in the 2000 election. Their point was that if every current or former service member voted together in an election, we could put Donald Duck (or a Kardashian..perish the thought...) in the White House.

So, how do we get more men and women who have demonstrated a willingness to offer lives in service of the greater good to run for office?

Response by SGT Steve Williams made Jul 9 at 2014 11:40 PM

2014-07-09T23:40:23-04:00

Yes, I believe they should be veterans.

Response by SPC Richard White made Jul 29 at 2014 10:01 PM

2014-07-29T22:01:53-04:00

I think military service is a plus but not a necessary thing for one to become President.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 3:27 AM

2014-08-03T03:27:14-04:00

It shouldn't be a requirement, but should be preferred. In today's world I highly favor candidates who have actual leadership experience as either a governor, military officer or NCO, or an executive of a large corporation. This is why I wanted Mitt Romney to win in the last election. He had been a governor AND an extremely successful businessman in the past. He also had a proven record of success and of listening to his advisors, the latter of which I cannot emphasize the importance of enough. The presidency is so complicated today that no one human being can be an expert in every field that the president must deal with. That is why advisors exist. The key is to surround yourself with those who are good at what they do, not just your friends (as we've seen so much in the last 6 years with this administration). This isn't necessarily the issue that is most important in modern elections, but I'll save that for a more relevant conversation.

Response by MAJ Jon Hyjek made Sep 3 at 2014 2:51 PM

2014-09-03T14:51:30-04:00

The first step would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requiring extensive research, data, and national debate, involving grass roots efforts to influence those deciding the fate of such an amendment. This follows the old adage that, "anything worth doing, is worth doing right".

"The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures"( http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/).

I believe that with such a dynamic political environment, in consideration of the effects of globalization, and a myriad of amorphous threats, that it is wise to require potential candidates, to include our House of Representatives all of the way up to the President, to have served in either the U.S. Armed Forces, or at least at the tip of the spear on "soft power" projects (e.g. building schools in remote regions, deconflicting regional, national, and tribal issues over water rights, ...) supported by the Department of State, or USAID projects that actually fall under the Department of Commerce.

The latest statistics indicate that the U.S. public doesn't trust our elected officials; however, there is a great deal of trust in the U.S. Armed Forces. Potentially, the collateral effects of establishing some form of service as a prerequisite, articulating a specified and extensive period of service, would generate the cascading effect of inculcating the 'values' of that service in our potential elected national leadership.

This measure would not preclude those individuals with physical limitations from being considered for elected office; however, they would have to spend time in other locales to understand the complexities of conducting operations, kinetic / non-kinetic, outside of the United States. It follows yet another adage, "walk a mile in another man's shoes", before you send that man off to remote regions to work, and / or potentially to die if that's what the mission requires.

Constitutional Amendment Process

Federal Register

Response by SFC Russell Campbell made Sep 4 at 2014 1:20 PM

2014-09-04T13:20:26-04:00

I feel that some form of national service before seeking political office would definitely inspire more confidence in our elected leaders, but in the present era approximately 96.3% of our elected leadership have balked at military service and other forms of national service to include the Health Corps under the Surgeon General and the Geodetic Survey Agency. I don't believe compulsory service for office would ever fly in the US and never really has.

That being said at present, I personally feel that we have been led down a primrose path by our political leadership of the last 30 years and I am now to the point where I feel that we have casted our pearls before the Swine of the Congress, the office of the President, the Federal Bureaucracy and to a some extent, the American people as a whole.

If you want to inspire real leadership trust with this soldier, how about 70% pay cuts in Congress ( including STAFF and GSA benefits, a reduction of federal "benefited" employees in the government as well as a serious reduction in those persons getting entitlements who have never paid real taxes and have never served anyone but themselves), rather than helping themselves to the monies paid in by real Americans, including the under paid members of our military (WHO DO PAY TAXES). How about term limits in Congress ( 5 terms in the house, 2 terms in the Senate and don't let the door hit you in the ass when and if you make it to 24 years of total time) as well as the destruction of the platinum parachute retirement programs that the Congress and other branches of government have voted in for themselves.

How about PAYING OFF DEBT AND MAKING THE DOLLAR STRONG? When peoples life savings are swept under the rug due to a hyper-inflationary depression (which we are presently heading for) and a thieving spend thrift government, I wonder how many government officials will weasel their way out of owning up to that responsibility. Gee, if I ran my life like the government did I would have been thrown in jail for embezzlement and fraud years ago. Then again, "do as we say not as we do" is Congresses mantra for the last 30 years or so. Long Live TEXAS, and to Hell with the present and past socialist and sell-out groups of assholes in the CONGRESS. they have led us to civic disintegration for the last 30-40 years and surely fiscal ruination in the very near future. Our "leadership" (I use that term very loosely due to the lack of real statesmanship in our government) got a bunch of our comrades killed in wars that they (Congress) wouldn't send their own kids to and are NOW saying we should haven't even been fought. In the end the real losers are the American people, but then again, you really do get the government YOU DESERVE!

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 8:54 PM

2014-10-28T20:54:20-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member, I agree with you. There's another, very similar post on this topic here on RallyPoint:

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-commander-in-chief-have-military-experience

Should the Commander in Chief have military experience? | RallyPoint

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...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 11:35 PM

2014-10-28T23:35:06-04:00

Given that generally only 1-2% of the population is in the military at a given time, mandating that POTUS have prior military service would limit the pool even more then it already is. Although, it may help bring the potential candidates back down from the richest.

But does military service alone imply good leadership qualities, or give someone the insight to be commander in chief?

The former PFC, who did 3 and out just to get school money? That person served.

Maybe it needs to be prior served that held a leadership position. So does being an NCO or CPO improve the prospect?

Commissioned Officers are already, by extension (some more extended the others), carrying out the intent of the Office of the President when it comes to military matters. So maybe only Officers are best for the job.

No, I don't agree with the premise that military service should be a requirement. There is a reason the Joint Chiefs and Sec Def exist and that is to provide guidance to our COC.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 8:22 AM

2014-11-14T08:22:41-05:00

Yes. If they have not served in combat. they should spend 30 days on the front lines, as a 2LT.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 9:00 AM

2014-11-14T09:00:00-05:00

I can see the argument for the President having served, seeing how the office holder also serves as Commander In Chief. However, I don't necessarily agree that all political office holders need to have served. As service members, we fill an important role in our country by keeping it safe from harm. However, we are not the only facet of life in the United States of America.

Part of what makes America great is our diversity. Not only along racial/ethnic/religious lines, but also in the breadth of occupations and interests. We need people who understand warfare, but also people who understand agriculture, technology, and a whole host of other fields to guide our country's policies.

What I don't like about the current state of affairs is all the career politicians who seem to be subject matter experts on getting elected, but not much else. Maybe the requirement should be to show experience in some kind of relevant field, whether it is the military or some other industry.

Response by SSG William Patton made Jan 29 at 2015 3:22 PM

2015-01-29T15:22:06-05:00

I think a president who has worn the uniform of our nation would have a better understanding of the ramifications of sending troops into harm's way as opposed to someone like Clinton or Obama. I also think that the president who has worn the uniform would understand those who serve are better suited to conduct the war and avoid involvement planning, except to outline political aims from going to war.

Response by SPC Arthur C. Sabio made Mar 22 at 2015 1:06 PM

2015-03-22T13:06:01-04:00

If a candidate has served in the military and even fought a conflict they have a unique perspective when it comes to making decision about sending troops into a conflict. They probably would have first hand experience to how much those who serve actually do sacrifice when forced to deploy in a questionable conflict. In general, I firmly believe that the experience of military and even just going through the process (basic training) helps instill some invaluable values that changes individuals, some more profoundly than others. I also notice that those who join the military, prior to service were less politically aware or had no interest, but now we see many veterans making there voices heard in politics. This, to me, started during the Vietnam war, when many veterans of the war started protesting the war until it conclusion. Now veteran are willing to give their 'two cent' and get involved if need. I see more and more veteran taking part in discussion, especially online, about varies issues both political or not. When a person enlist we take our oath to protect the Constitution, thus, it became ingrained even after service to continue to protect those rights given by the Constitution. Personally, I felt as part of military training recruits should also be given a course on the Constitution. It had bother me that many that I trained and later served with hardly knew the Constitution other than what has been popularly been said and covered by the media. It would make sense that if you take an oath to protect the Constitution, then you should all you can about it. Why not just have soldier memorize and recite the 'Bill of Rights' as they would the 'Soldier's Creed'?

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Apr 14 at 2015 2:30 PM

2015-04-14T14:30:28-04:00

My vote is, "not necessarily."
I would prefer they have done just a little honorable time, as it gives a little appreciation. My fear, no matter how much you do in the military, with our genitalia-measuring culture, it would never be enough. YOu did four years, I retired. You retired, but never deployed? Never jumped? Dont have a ranger tab? Oh....you were air force reserve?? I kidd!
2nd, the military fools us into thinking that because we were the 'pitoon sarnt' that we are ready to be CEO of Bank of America. A little time in service helps, in principle only. Managing the nation's economy, its defense, its healthcare, its welfare programs...thats a big responsibility and it goes way beyond your PT score and grasp of AR 670-1...

Response by CPL Eric Allen made Jun 12 at 2015 10:54 PM

2015-06-12T22:54:32-04:00

yes...... I think knowing how to use your assets wisely would be great IE bush,George H. W. Bush,Ronald Reagan,Jimmy Carter all had military backgrounds and knew how to control and conquer but what do i know most of the good presidents were before my time and I just wish we had a president like Ronald Reagan

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 13 at 2015 10:59 PM

2015-06-13T22:59:30-04:00

No...Commanders-in-Chief are politicians/diplomats, not servicemembers.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 11:07 PM

2015-06-13T23:07:02-04:00

We have this discussion a lot, there are bonuses to each side. I definitely feel it would make life for military and military decisions better, but that won't make someone a good political leader or figure head.

Response by 1SG David Niles made Jun 13 at 2015 11:12 PM

2015-06-13T23:12:04-04:00

This is America, which should mean freedom, we do not always need a war president, but when we do, we do. We do now, so having a military trained president would be good. If we were to have that expectation, what branch, what rank, officer? enlisted? Senior NCO? Field grade officer? or would a PFC be good enough experience in the military to be CiC?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 13 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-06-13T23:38:25-04:00

I don't think it should be a requirement. What I DO think though is that the President, whomever it may be, should listen to the advice of the JCS and respective branch Secretaries and not his "civilian advisers" and base his decisions solely on what those people tell him.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Jun 13 at 2015 11:45 PM

2015-06-13T23:45:03-04:00

I don't think military service should be required. It never was in the Constitution. It is a discriminator I look for, but it doesn't necessarily mean the candidate is the best choice. Jimmy Carter was in the Navy. Still turned out to be a disappointment as president. John McCain was in the Navy, but I won't vote for him.

I DO think all candidates ought to undergo a thourough background investigation, at least as rigorous as a TS/SBI. Heck, I had to undergo a more detailed background investigation to become a 911 Operator than Obama had to submit to to become president. Something wrong there.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 11:47 PM

2015-06-13T23:47:30-04:00

What i do feel is that the president should be the commander in chief i feel there should be someone else to run the military.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 13 at 2015 11:55 PM

2015-06-13T23:55:46-04:00

BEFORE a person is given the power to send US troops into harms way, he or she should have been in uniform and been willing to go themselves. I would add POLICE and Firefighters to that list as well.

My dad always told me "A Man serves his country he does not make excuses for why he did not."

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jun 14 at 2015 12:37 AM

2015-06-14T00:37:18-04:00

I voted "no", but...

I think that SERVICE should be required, whether that is as a first responder, or disaster relief, or military or SOMETHING where the overall task is to SERVE others.

I'd like to see everyone do some form of service. We - as a nation and a society - might develop some respect for each other.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2015 6:20 AM

2015-06-14T06:20:43-04:00

Recently saw a meme that says "Presidential Requirement: Previously Served in the Military." I hope that's the dumbest thing I see today. Why not "previously was a school teacher", "previously was an under-cover agent", or "previously was a park ranger" as the president also oversees those agencies? Don't forget, Hitler served in the Army and look how that worked out.

Response by SGT Toby Vado made Jun 14 at 2015 6:22 AM

2015-06-14T06:22:21-04:00

Absofreakinlutely

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jun 14 at 2015 6:39 AM

2015-06-14T06:39:50-04:00

No, no more so than the Military should statutorily refuse to allow people of any specific race, color or background for those reasons alone.. Why would you want to self limit your available pool of candidates.

And lets face it, there are MANY prior service folks I know I would not want in the Oval office as a visitor, never mind as the person behind the chair.

Lastly.. "Required previously served" what does that even mean... enlisted? Commissioned? Warrant? Some specific MOS?
How does being a Infantry Private, Signal Captain or SSG Food Services Solider better prepare one to be a POTUS than say any comparable Civilian employment position?.

The qualified person, who served in a service that included combat, and strategic level positions would be nice...but I'd settle for qualified.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 14 at 2015 6:44 AM

2015-06-14T06:44:52-04:00

Why don't we just follow the Constitution and existing laws? There is no Constitutional requirement for the President to have military service (although Slick Willy claimed protection under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as he claimed that, as CIC, he was on active duty with the military -- what a tool). Congress, however, is the sole determinant under the Constitution of whether we go to war, and, under the War Powers Act, a President may only order forces into harm's way if Congress authorizes it, the United States is in IMMINENT danger of being attacked, or the United States has ALREADY been attacked. Even then, Congress must be informed and consulted within 90 days. When's the last time that was followed?

Response by SPC Ei McS made Jun 14 at 2015 7:37 AM

2015-06-14T07:37:13-04:00

Answer: No.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jun 14 at 2015 9:22 AM

2015-06-14T09:22:09-04:00

It would require a Constitutional Amendment but yes, since the President is Commander in Chief, s/he should have done at least one active duty (not Guard or Reserve) tour to be eligible. It is very difficult to effectively lead an organization in which you've never served...

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 14 at 2015 9:26 AM

2015-06-14T09:26:45-04:00

I think it should be a requirement for Congress!
The current head of the House Armed Services Committee has spent 0 time in the military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2015 9:48 AM

2015-06-14T09:48:17-04:00

Leadership requires, to some degree, knowledge and experience which goes beyond "book smarts".

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 14 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-06-14T10:10:43-04:00

It would make the president more aware of the plight of today's military

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 14 at 2015 5:21 PM

2015-06-14T17:21:25-04:00

Requiring POTUS to have military experience would require a Constitutional amendment. That wouldn't happen. But just to see how that would play out... So that would mean anyone running for president would have to have military experience although I have no clue how much. That would also mean that politician wannabes would want to get their tickets punched just in case. So how do you feel sharing a firing zone with a political wannabe who's just there to punch their ticket? And how do you feel with political riff-raff constipating our training system?

We tend to appreciate POTUS having been prior military but would pay a heavy price to require it.

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Jun 14 at 2015 8:16 PM

2015-06-14T20:16:14-04:00

The Constitution is kind of clear on the requirements. An amendment would be required to change them.

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Jun 14 at 2015 8:16 PM

2015-06-14T20:16:55-04:00

The Constitution is pretty clear on the requirements. An amendment would be required to add military service as a requirement.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 4:16 PM

2015-06-17T16:16:45-04:00

It's always a crap shoot but the YES vote at least gets us someone that understands the sacrifice...as long as politics doesn't take over their soul we have a fighting chance.

Response by PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott) made Jun 17 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-06-17T16:18:56-04:00

I post this question as we are about to transition from what I consider one of the worst Commander & Chiefs I served for. Mr. Obama never served a day in his life and it showed. When it has come time to make some tough decisions he has either completely ignored them or taken to long to make a decision. It has cost us relationships with Allies and our military is at the weakest state it has been since the Clinton early retirement options. I'm not at all saying that Bush Jr. was the best, but when it came time to make critical decisions he never wavered. Post your thoughts and please be respectfully.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 4:43 PM

2015-06-17T16:43:19-04:00

As much as I would like a president to have served in the military, the constitution defines the requirements and we should stick with them.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jun 17 at 2015 4:45 PM

2015-06-17T16:45:31-04:00

Required to serve in the military - no.

Required to know how to lead the military as Commander in Chief - yes!

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 4:50 PM

2015-06-17T16:50:22-04:00

No. I would like them to have, but it's not a requirement.

Response by SSgt Dale W. made Jun 17 at 2015 5:02 PM

2015-06-17T17:02:40-04:00

While my preference is to have a President that has chosen military service, I vote no on the requirement because constitutionally there is no requirement. Also, as MSG James Webb has stated it is indeed a crapshoot as to the result. Example, Jimmy Carter was Navy...entered Annapolis in 1943, graduated 1946. Ultimately ended up serving under Admiral Rickover where he learned that when dealing with nuke power plants, micro-management was a good idea. Unfortunately, IMHO, what President Carter thought he learned was that micro-management applied to everything across the board. When I reached my first permanent duty station in 1980, I was shown aircraft squadrons that could not fly & train due to lack of parts & funding, morale in the crapper and the unit I was assigned to had almost 2/3's busted for drugs a few days prior to my arrival. I almost didn't enlist because I sensed a disdain for the military from the White House and Congress at the time. My comments have nothing to do with his personality. As a matter of fact, I have it on very good authority from my Chief two years later that President and Mrs. Carter were gracious and endearing on a personal level. My observations are based on management style and policy. Foreign policy for the Carter Administration seemed to be apologetic that the United States was, well, the United States. Sound Familiar? I have often compared the current administration to his.

Ronald Reagan served, but his service during WWII was essentially P.R. He made war movies. Despite his limited service, President Reagan proudly proclaimed the United States was in fact, yes, the United States. He believed and understood that peace comes through strength, not unilateral disarmament. Simple street smarts on an international scale.

So, just two examples from recent history, ones we can most relate to.

Again, my no vote for the poll is based on our Constitution. My vote at the ballot box takes into account my preferences.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Jun 17 at 2015 5:04 PM

2015-06-17T17:04:56-04:00

The CinC should be acutely aware of effect the decisions that he (of she) makes have on our armed forces.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jun 17 at 2015 5:24 PM

2015-06-17T17:24:18-04:00

I'm saying Yes, but understand that it’s not a requirement for the office. I just think that we are better served to have a Commander in Chief whose been there, done that, and got the T-Shirt. With our country being at war for over the last 15 years now (almost 15) we will have a lot of combat veterans growing up in just about every state in the union, so I think there will be a lot more candidates with military experience down the road. Again its more of a personal preference!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 5:37 PM

2015-06-17T17:37:35-04:00

Although beneficial, the answer is no.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 5:38 PM

2015-06-17T17:38:58-04:00

No, and I prefer they don't.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 17 at 2015 5:45 PM

2015-06-17T17:45:05-04:00

Most definitely. That would have kept Obama out, he would have been recycled until they sent him home on a bus.
As long as the candidate was in good enough shape to have passed the physical would be a good qualifier.

And, since the President is our Commander-In-Chief it only makes good sense.

Response by PO2 Brian Nordstrom made Jun 17 at 2015 6:06 PM

2015-06-17T18:06:51-04:00

If one does not know the sacrifice or life they cannot know the suffrage. .. period

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 17 at 2015 6:09 PM

2015-06-17T18:09:05-04:00

I am not willing to change the Constitution. Whenever something like this comes though, I am reminded of the book, STARSHIP TROOPERS. No one can become a citizen without serving because by serving, they have demonstrated they put the nation above their own self interests. I said that to my wife once and that was a mistake but it is an interesting position.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 6:14 PM

2015-06-17T18:14:11-04:00

I vote yes. And not just the President, but all American citizens. Then we'd be certain that the President had served. Yet another benefit of universal conscription.

Response by PO2 Roger Wheeler made Jun 17 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-06-17T20:20:06-04:00

I think any president should have some military background.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 10:56 PM

2015-06-17T22:56:08-04:00

A President should not be required to have served in the U.S. Military because it will limit the individual to just focus solely on military related issues. A President must be a well rounded individual who understands a little bit of everything in regard to policy and military as well as finances and resource management. These individuals who serve as Presidents have the total leadership package with a concentration in military, law, or business etc.....

Response by SSG Melvin Nulph made Jun 18 at 2015 1:56 AM

2015-06-18T01:56:13-04:00

It would be nice to know that the commander-in-chief would know something about what he's in charge of,wouldn't it.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Jun 18 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-06-18T15:04:38-04:00

Reguired, I say no.....good if he or she did, yes.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-06-30T12:14:07-04:00

We are supposed to serve under civilian leadership; I may not like their decisions and appreciate when they have served, but I don't think there is a need for it.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jul 3 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-07-03T09:49:43-04:00

No, I don't think that requirement is a good idea.

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Feb 15 at 2016 11:44 PM

2016-02-15T23:44:50-05:00

The idea is not bad,but it would disqualify some otherwise good people. You would also have to change the constitution

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 11:49 PM

2016-02-15T23:49:20-05:00

A candidate that has been in the military has shown service to our country. It would be a positive factor depending on the other qualities that the candidate possesses. I do not think it should be mandatory.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 11:50 PM

2016-02-15T23:50:19-05:00

I agree....and in this election, not one Candidate has prior military service? I don't know for sure...let me know people? http://blog.govfaces.com/who-deserves-to-be-a-citizen-a-reflection-on-robert-a-heinleins-starship-troopers-55-years-onward/

Who deserves to be a citizen? A reflection on Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.

Introduction This year marks the 55th anniversary of Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein’s ground-breaking work of science-fiction which introduced and popularized many tropes of contemporary military science-fiction, the most well-known being powered combat suits commonplace today in films such as Guillermo del Toro’s 2013 Pacific Rim or Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft video-game franchise. Heinlein continues to…

Response by COL David Turk made Feb 15 at 2016 11:58 PM

2016-02-15T23:58:05-05:00

Doubt in today's world that would happen, however it would be good if at least one senior staff had military experience; e.g., VP, Secretary of State, chief of staff, etc.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Feb 16 at 2016 12:04 AM

2016-02-16T00:04:53-05:00

I would suggest that no, we should not require military service to run for the presidency. Doing so would only minimize the pool of candidates, and still not guarantee an effective President... Let's not forget President Carter was a Naval officer, and performed dismally, if we consider the outcomes.

Response by SSG John Mitchell made Feb 16 at 2016 12:23 AM

2016-02-16T00:23:35-05:00

The problem with Politicians, not first timers, today is that MOST have never held a Job. Struggled day to day to live. Lived Paycheck to Paycheck. They are all entitled millionaires with no concept of what the average Joe on the street goes through. I doubt that Military Service would change the attitude they already posses. I saw way more sorry Leaders than those that actually took their Service seriously. So no. In this day and age I don't see it as a benefit.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 12:28 AM

2016-02-16T00:28:25-05:00

Th military is great experience, but not the only great experience.

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Feb 16 at 2016 12:52 AM

2016-02-16T00:52:09-05:00

It could not hurt but I don't think it can or should be a requirement.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Feb 16 at 2016 1:13 AM

2016-02-16T01:13:22-05:00

No. Military service is great experience (usually) but is not a qualifier for character. Ethical behavior integrated with integrity is the better qualifier for candidacy of any political office.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 1:38 AM

2016-02-16T01:38:00-05:00

I feel no. Military service isn't a neccassary part of being running for president, but draft dodging should be a disqualifier.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 2:04 AM

2016-02-16T02:04:32-05:00

I say no. What skills or knowledge would a candidate learn in the military that would make him a better president? Especially if you consider that most likely that experience would either be as a junior enlisted or officer. I don't believe you have to have been in combat to appreciate the gravity of sending troops into harms way. and you have the joint chiefs to advise you on whether military operations could achieve the ultimate conditions desired.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Feb 16 at 2016 2:25 AM

2016-02-16T02:25:08-05:00

WTF?

No.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 3:28 AM

2016-02-16T03:28:45-05:00

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Feb 16 at 2016 4:11 AM

2016-02-16T04:11:11-05:00

I served when President Eisenhower & Kennedy were our Commanders in Chief. Both had combat experience in WWII and knew the horrors of war. Today we have a Commander in Chief who never served in the military. But historians will judge how well Obama performed as our Commander in Chief. He did give the OK to get Osama Bin Laden but I can't think of anything else he did that was noteworthy. I cringed when Obama could not pronounce "Corpsman" and rendered a salute to his Marine Security with a cup of coffee in his hand. I don't see Obama spending much time at our military hospitals or bases in the states or overseas. But I do see him playing a lot of golf and on fund raisers for the Democrats. I am not a historian, just an old Marine Veteran and think Obama has not been a strong Commander in Chief. I for one will be glad to see him leave the White House but worry who will take his place.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 5:05 AM

2016-02-16T05:05:00-05:00

It would be something that would help. Not just being in the military, but any Public Service, albeit police or firefighter. Have the Enforcer of the Constitution be someone who knows a thing or two about Selfless Service. Someone who knows that life is not just something to be handed out lightly, but something you have to work hard at to achieve. With endless nights, calls at all hours of the day, all with one simple goal in mind.... to help your fellow man.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 16 at 2016 5:58 AM

2016-02-16T05:58:13-05:00

I would say No but I would definitely be more likely to support a Veteran running for President than a Non-Veteran unless he was a Complete Asshole both in and out of Uniform and I have met plenty of those.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 6:09 AM

2016-02-16T06:09:11-05:00

No, it should not be a requirement. Although it would give potential candidates valuable experience and knowledge of the workings of the military. But with that said, I do advocate that Americans should be required to a least serve two years in the military. Or at least with some kind of community service. If this was a requirement then for the most part your question would be answered. I think then more people would have a greater appreciation for what our military folks and their families sacrifice. And just maybe a little more respect and appreciation of our country.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Feb 16 at 2016 6:47 AM

2016-02-16T06:47:19-05:00

IMO it would be nice but you are pissing in the wind if you think it will ever happen.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 7:07 AM

2016-02-16T07:07:44-05:00

No.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2016 5:46 PM

2016-03-03T17:46:29-05:00

With only 7% of all citizens having served since WW1, and only about 1% of the population at any given time, I think having the requirement makes the pool of potential officials too small.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Mar 11 at 2016 1:33 AM

2016-03-11T01:33:20-05:00

We need more veterans in politics, the general public is horrible to our veterans here in Northern California, especially the Oakland East Bay under the current regime of voter appointed. The powers to be closed all the military bases here and let in the world. Now there is a garbage problem that came with it. Civilians are terrible at area beautification and picking up their own trash.

Response by SFC Jimmy Hernandez-Benitez made Apr 21 at 2016 8:07 AM

2016-04-21T08:07:02-04:00

Well, that's the beauty of the democratic system, we can't have total control, we have to have a civilian as president, but for me we should have veteran in every keep position in the government and in the VA, it should be run by brothers in arms that understand our situation and speak the same military language. It is up too us to let this politician know that we still have power.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2017 10:23 PM

2017-01-13T22:23:04-05:00

I think All US Citizens should have some kind of federal service "With Service Comes Citizenship"

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2017 10:27 PM

2017-01-13T22:27:13-05:00

It would be nice. But it isn't stipulated in our Constitution. It can't be required without an Amendment, and I wouldn't want it. It would also exclude capable Americans, like FDR, who aren't physically suited to military service. It's important to remember that our founders never foresaw the rise of a professional standing military, other than a small Navy. The Army was expected to remain a small staff with most combat arms troops coming from state militias, now the National Guard.

That said, in our last two Presidential elections neither major party candidate had any military service. Our Nation, regardless of party, is becoming one in which we've devalued the experience of sacrificing yourself to something greater.

Response by Shirleene Prioleau made Jan 19 at 2017 8:38 AM

2017-01-19T08:38:10-05:00

Honestly, never thought about it, but if they did not actually serve, I think they should at least take part in some military training. The mindset is so different and I believe that is where the confusion lies. I did not actually served, but I worked in a capacity that allowed me the opportunity to train, perform drill and ceremony, exhibit fitness abilities, wear uniforms, be subject to hours upon hours of tactical exercises in all types of weather and conditions. I had to perform PT tests and pass, as well as take physical tests on ranks and procedures. I had to stand in front of a board and say why I felt I was worthy. I know that's not all there is to it, but trust me, it was an eye opener and I viewed the military experience from a totally different vantage point. Even to the extent where I now need knee and foot surgery from injuries incurred while in the field and from wearing my gear. Amazing experience and I wouldn't trade it. It fixed my mindset right up!