Don't you think that the Commander In Chief of our Military should be required to have served in that military

i think being in the army is important when considering sending others to war.

However- i don't like the idea of requiring someone to join the military

lost.eu/21618

The overwhelming majority of our Presidents have had some military background, but that did not and does not mean that a person without such experience would be unable to act as CinC, or not be a 'good' President. Military service, especially below the level of General/Admiral, (and sometimes even then) means you take orders from those above you. It does not bestow upon an individual the over-reaching comprehensive understanding of current military operations world wide. This is why there is a SecDef, the JCS, National Security Advisor, and others; to provide guidance, information, and advice.

Perhaps it allows a certain understanding, but the framers purposely gave the duty of Commander-in-Chief to a civilian President, not a Professional military general.

Samuel Huntington calls it the proper subordination of a competent and professional military to the ends of policy as determined by a civilian authority (the President).

I agree - because all Americans should serve 1 or 2 years (at least in National Guard) to understand the nation we share. Of course the National Guard should be in our nation to guard it - not over seas but you didn't ask about that, sorry to rant.

The Major branches though need to explain all the risks to really help people know what they are about to be a part of. I was sad during first Gulf war that Americans serving as soldiers did not know they were going to get shot at - "I joined for the college money" was hard to hear.

They also would better understand where all the spending waste happens from Congress, and how the civilians run the war machine from the inside.

It is not a prerequisite of the job. All President's have a Cabinet of people that have specialties in different areas, including Secretary of Defense.

Our current President did not serve( the Texas Air Guard is NOT serving in the military ), nor did Clinton, Reagan, and there are more that you could look up who have not served.

So, no, I don't think that should be required of a President.

I am a retired Air Force Officer, and I have mixed feelings about that question. --- (I would prefer a smart person to be in charge of our military/country - so to say. ) --smiles

(PS: I feel Bill Clinton (who did not serve in the military) was the best Commander in Chief of the military. He kept us out of war, and yet kept Sadaam in check by zapping him with an air strike every time he got rowdy. And, he ran a good bluff against our other enemies. -- -- net results: No soldiers died in combat while Clinton was "Commander in Chief".

"Slick Willy" yes, but he was our "Slick Willy". I didn't like him as our Governor here in Arkansas. He was alway pulling tricks on us (the average tax payer). But as "Commander in Chief" he pulled his tricks on our enemies. Tricks that kept our country "out of war" and allowed our country to prosper.

Added: War is a lose - lose situation. The purpose of our military is not to fight wars, the purpose is to be so strong that no country or group of terrorists would dare risk the consequences of war with us. A battle is only successful when we get in ---- and get out. A smart President would recognize that; regardless of whether or not he had "served in the military service".

Staying in Iraq simply irritates the citizenry there and invites the terrorists to prove that "our boots on the ground" are vulnerable to sneak attacks. Tens of thousand of our brave troops have spilled their blood, and over 4000 have died after we defeated Sadaam .... because of "Bush" not having an exit plan. ----- I will vote for the smartest Candidate regardless of whether or not that candidate "served in the military".

So...you're saying only the military can run for President? That sounds like something we read about in the papers...military rule.

I don't like it.

I think we should choose our President out of all the natural US citizens

You know it is not a constiutional requirement, however you make a good point.

I think they should yes; particualarly in today's world. I thnk it would be a good rule, maybe implicitly that is what the founding fathers meant.

Yeah, particualarly when we are at war yes.

He doesn't necessarily have to have served to have knowledge of it or understand it. There are things you have never done, yet you know how to them and you understand them. Right?

Do a better job?? Who?? I think we're being a bit naive.

God bless.

Oh yea no doubt...at this point Obama doesn't know Brigade from a hole in the ground...and the 57 States they represent...having boots on the ground in a combat zone is a good way and fast way of learning leadership...going to College for 6 years is not...I'm not that fond of McCain, but he has had his boots on the ground...and is a Disabled Veteran like myself, so he knows what we go through...not growing up rich and going to Private Schools and Luas...oh yea "Hope and Change"...that gives me a warm and fuzzy...not!

As a personal opinion, yes. As a matter of law, no. The constitutional restrictions on who should be allowed to run for president are plenty restrictive enough as it is.