Amazon.com Widgets

Should military service be required for U.S. Presidency?

Asked by: wyattn97
  • I believe it should be.

    31/44 U.S. Presidents have served in the military already.

    The person in control of America's Armed Forces should have experience in the military.

    Veterans have been proven by numerous studies to be able to make quicker decisions.

    The military is a great way to reform an individual, as it teaches honor and discipline.

    There will be more unity between ranks. (The Commander in Chief will be more relateable to ground troops.)

  • Control Of Armed Forces

    I believe to take control of the armed forces you should know how it is to be apart of the armed forces. Without this feeling of your country your leisure for deploying troops would be outrageous and un despicable. Lastly this military entry will give presidents a sense of pride discipline, Honor courage and commitment.

  • I believe that presidents should have military experience.

    Being the commander in chief is a major power and should not be a power given to someone who does not even know how the military branches work or what it is like to be a soldier. I believe that one should know what it is like to be a soldier, Understanding the courage and even the fears of an ordinary soldier before deciding whether or not to send troops out or go to war. Furthermore, The military teaches discipline and that is a major thing that one needs to have if going to be in the presidential position.

  • Things that must be learned over time

    There are things that a enlistment in the military can teach someone. Honor, discipline, brotherhood, courage, unit cohesion, and toughness. They don't only have to be applied to military or war. These things can help you with any difficult situation you face every day and in any job you do. I think yes it should be a requirement having at least served in the armed forces for the country you are taking responsibility for. To stand up and protect the lives that you will be making laws for. Its NOT about knowing how to "war" its about knowing how to be a patriot. Its an honor to serve.

  • Commander and Chief

    If you are going to be the commander and chief of the U.S armed forces you should at least have some military knowledge, so 1 enlistment should be required. Having the power to do certain things as commander and chief is outrageous for a person with no discipline or leadership positions (trump)

  • Commander and Chief

    If you are going to be the commander and chief of the U.S armed forces you should at least have some military knowledge, so 1 enlistment should be required. Having the power to do certain things as commander and chief is outrageous for a person with no discipline or leadership positions (trump)

  • Yes they should serve.

    Bottom line. If you send men and women into war you should have served. Sure, it doesn't have anything to do with politics blah blah blah, but, like I said, you are the Commander in Chief of the military, it looks bad that you don't even know how to salute those who salute you. Disgraceful, embarrassing. The last 4 presidents are an embarrassment.

  • Some type of service, at least

    Military service or a type of community service should be required. Military service to understand the value of life and to, hopefully, understand the costs of war. Peace Corps to learn the value of helping others internationally. A soup kitchen volunteer to understand the poor and homeless. Disaster relief worker to understand the costs firsthand of global warming, etc.

  • Military Experience Help

    Although being in the military is not a requirement for becoming the President of the United States of America, a President who has served in the US armed forces understands the challenges that the men and women of the American Armed forces are facing. After all, how can a President understand what its like for men and women to go into battle when they have never been in a military battle?

    For example, our nations first President George Washington military experience was necessary for helping our nation win the American Revolution. After all, Washington had military experience to compete with the British Empire which was the most powerful military in the world at the time. Washington was willing to put his life on the line so that future Americans not yet born could live in a nation of democracy and freedom. Washington's military experience helped him in helping to shape country which has become one of the greatest civilizations ever created in the history of the world.

  • Political ability has nothing to do with military service.

    The President is not a military position- holding authority over troops does not require service. That is why the office has military advisors and a Secretary of Defense.

    To require military service would eliminate a great many of the best candidates for public office, who spent their youth on education and experience in office rather than on military service.

    Never mind that the majority of the President's job has nothing to do with the military.

    I'd rather see a mandatory passing of a civics and Constitutional law test for public office.

  • That's completely ridiculous

    Whether or not a person has served in the military says nothing about their character or abilities as a leader. Placing that restriction also restricts people with certain disablilities from becoming president, even though their disabilities do not necessarily impact their ability as a leader. That's a blatant attack on liberty.

  • No, not really

    Although it certainly helps that they have prior military experience because it helps them to develop leadership skills and obviously get a first-hand sense of what military personnel go through. I think that as long as they chose smart advisors in their cabinet and are willing to listen to their advice, that's all that really matters.

  • Irrelevant to Serving in Government

    Veterans are brave people, who do truly love this country typically. On the other hand, politics and American affairs are completely unrelated to military service. In addition, serving does not mean a leadership position, and thus doesn't make them qualified to lead the nation. While serving as a high ranking military would often be a point in their favor, it should not be a definite.

  • Being in the military has nothing to do with politics.

    There would be no point in requiring military service to be the president. It would be like requiring any other type of experience, e.g. a similar argument can be made that the president must be college-educated since no doubt evidence can also be found that those who have a college degree are more knowledgeable and make better decisions than those who haven't. But so long as everyone can vote, a person who is a bad leader naturally won't be voted into the presidency, so it's pointless to set this kind of standard.

  • Horrible idea for the presidency

    There are many extremely intelligente people who would make great presidents and fix this country who haven't served. Military service means nothing at all for the president, it just means they fought but it gives them no ability to lead a country, especially out of an economic crisis. It would be much more logical to say a president should have been a Governor before since then they would have experience managing a large population.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>