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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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? 

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'?

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

Yes, I believe they should be veterans.

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?

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.