Will the U.S. ever have a President who saw combat in OEF or OIF?

There is no doubt that the US will have a OEF or OIF, and lets also include the new Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) brewing, President in the future.

Saw Combat? I don't know. Someone who served in theater? I think with near certainty, yes. We already have seen many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan being elected to Congress.

The issue is, can a veteran of these wars maintain their integrity and honor and still be elected President.

If we ever see another President who has served in the military, it will be somebody who has been very successful in wars that put his name in the public eye. His name will be very recognizable to the everyone. It doesn't look like we have anyone out there in the near future.

I doubt it because most presidential candidates are professional politicians and have been groomed over years and years by their respective party. Could it happen yes likely most likely not.

We've had not POTUS that was a Veteran of Korea or Vietnam, although there were surely some of those vets that I would have voted for (SEN John Glenn, a WWII and Korean vet, comes to mind). I think that this trend is continuing, sadly. It may not be a matter of having support from society as much as it is a matter of not having a Vet be a willing candidate.

Allen West is a Desert Storm and OIF vet, he is a possibility, but I really don't think that there any that are running for office.

Odds have to be against it, not because nobody is qualified but because percentages work against the Post-9/11 generation of veterans. It would have to be someone dynamic, with a Clinton-like ability to be loved and with strong fund raising abilities. That is not saying a Post-9/11 vet wouldn't be a great president because service members have a lot of character traits that make them attractive candidates and good leaders.

As politically involved as our military leadership has become, I honestly do not believe we will see anyone who served in OIF/OEF be elected as POTUS. I do, however, feel that the POTUS should serve at least one tour in the military, even if they never see combat. I also feel this way regarding the SECDEF. I believe that to understand the nature of the military and to truly understand its structure and effectiveness, these leaders will need the experience.

While I cant say whether we will or won't have a president with experience in the future, I can say that I believe that there are alot of young veterans that are starting their political careers that look to be promising difference makers when they get there. How it all shakes out when it does get to the Commander-in-Chief is a whole different ballgame that can take us onto a completely different conversation.
By the way, on the illustration for Presidents and war service, I think there are a few mistakes. I know this is not your illustration, but it is the first time I have seen it so I wanted to point out the small errors.
1. A. Jackson was not old enough for formal service in the Revolutionary War, being born in 1767. If we are to include his service as an American Irregular, I believe that we should include all members of the Continental Congress that passed the Declaration of Independance, as that was truly an act of war.
2. Z. Taylor's service in the War of 1812 is a little lacking, he may have been in service but should have an asterik as well.
3. R. Nixon saw no actual combat in WWII and should also have an asterik.

Probably, but not for a while, I'd guess. Look how long WW2 era folks were in office (Ike to Bush the Elder, and nearly Bob Dole), and Vietnam era POTUSs (Clinton onward), and I don't see the Baby Boomers giving it up power any faster than their predecessors did.

MAJ Laurie H. , Ma'am, Sadly in the last Presidential election it was pointed out this election had no one who had ever served in the military running for President or Vice President. Consequently, I remain hopeful but not overly optimistic. During the years of the draft, it was much more common to see military members in the office of President. Many of our first Presidents had military experience and the 1st President Bush was the last who had combat experience from WWII. As we shifted to an all volunteer force this seems to have reduced the numbers with military experience.

My belief is that service makes you better aware of world events, the impact of serving on service members and their families, and the impact that a reduction of benefits, no or low salary increase, and or other loss of benefits entails. Further, it provides good order and discipline, time management skills, and LEADERSHIP foundations. All of these qualities and more make a Veteran a likely candidate to lead our country, and yet as time goes by the chances seem reduced.

President George H.W. Bush was the last WWII veteran to serve as President and his term was from 1989 through 1993. If we use the same logic, roughly 40 years after the war ends the last President who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars will be in office, then we have roughly 40 plus years to go. Hopefully in that time, one of our contemporaries will decide to run and be elected.

Thank you for your question.