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?

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.

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

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.

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.

SFC (Join to see), 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

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.

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.

Nope. The founding fathers were wise

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.

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.