Do Veterans make better Presidents?

SSG Adam Reed — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:33:44 -0400

Of all the 44 Presidents this great country has had, do you think the ones with prior military service have proven to be the best ones? And if you want please name your favorite. Mine. Bush Sr.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 9:34 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:34:55 -0400

Prior service should be a requirement for the job

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 15 at 2015 9:55 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:55:28 -0400

It's a jaded question.

This is like asking troops if they want skip field day.

The vast majority of our Presidents have had military service. Additionally, the only President to ever resign had military service. 50% of the Presidents to be Impeached were in the military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 10:01 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:01:27 -0400

I would like to say now this topic isn't going to end well. :)
Didn't serve (in chronological order):
John Adams-none, but take part in a naval battle, supposedly dressed as a marine, assisting in the defense.
John Quincy Adams-none
Martin van Buren-none
Grover Cleveland-none, drafted civil war, paid $150 substitution fee (legal)
William Taft-none, Secretary of war 1904-08, joined Connecticut's home guard during WWI. (After president)
Woodrow Wilson-none
Warren Harding-none
Calvin Coolidge-none
Herbert Hoover-humanitarian aid during WWI, guide to marines during boxer rebellion
Franklin Roosevelt- tried to enlist navy during Spanish American war, had measles. Assistant Secretary of navy during WWI, offered resignation for commission, denied by president.
Bill Clinton- deferment, 2a, school, later registered, number not chosen
Barak Obama-none

And there is my contribution to the topic, I'm getting my popcorn.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Mar 15 at 2015 10:07 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:07:48 -0400

Correlation does not imply causation. We have unique experiences to bring to bear but we are not infallible.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/03/15/3633912/tom-cotton-alarmed-capital-iran-controlled-iran/

Tom Cotton Seems Confused About The Basic Geography Of Iran

"They already control Tehran," Cotton said of the Iranian regime.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Mar 15 at 2015 10:08 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:08:25 -0400

Having served gives people a better appreciation for the US military, but it's only one of many factors that one has to consider in electing a President. Both Al Gore and John Kerry had more military experience than George W. Bush, but it doesn't mean I would have voted for them over Bush because of it.

Short answer for me, is that it's too hard to make a blanket statement like "veterans make for better Presidents" -- not any more than you can say "veterans make for better parents." There's just a lot more in an individual. With that said, and with everything else being equal, I would prefer a President that had military service because it affords him a better insight into the military culture.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 15 at 2015 10:09 PM

SFC Collin McMillion — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:09:33 -0400

I believe if a president is a position where there are military or hostile actions, which seems to be during almost every administration, I really think some sort of military backround is almost a given. What we have been experiencing under the current leadership is anyone who knows the situation, especially in conflict, and disagrees with the way things are being done gets fired. Why even have people with 30yrs+ experience in these matters if your "no experience" is going to set the ground rules. If you know the job, be allowed to do it, don't put someone in that doesn't even quality as a rookie.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 10:23 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:23:49 -0400

yes they do and they have great leadership abilities they also make great presidents

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 15 at 2015 11:13 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 23:13:03 -0400

Clearly, we are tainted. If I were king, I would insist everyone served somewhere... military, peace corps, etc. I think the president should be a veteran, but we have had good presidents who were and who were not veterans.

Response by PFC Rebecca Robertson made Mar 16 at 2015 2:46 AM

PFC Rebecca Robertson — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 02:46:41 -0400

I feel that since the president is where we ultimately get our orders to start a war then yes i feel that the president should have to serve to understand. Understand that when he gives the orders what all they mean all the way down to the toilet scrubbing food cooking vets.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 2:57 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 02:57:59 -0400

I can't really say veterans make better Presidents. But I think they're more in tune with the sacrifices we make and that translates into more consideration when it comes to budget issues.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 3:20 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 03:20:59 -0400

Perhaps you meant to ask which President was your fav in your lifetime...that would be easier to answer. Some of the military President's were my favs...reading about Washington, Roosevelt, Lincoln, from a lifetime before me, and JFK, Reagan, and Bush Sr from my generation... my least favs are Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and current.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 4:23 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:23:44 -0400

There is way more responsibility that comes with the presidency than just military knowledge/support. I would much rather have a President that is full spectrum and able to bring every element of National Power to bear. Would also like to see a true bipartisan that can unite the current shit show we have been dealing with for the last couple decades.

Military experience is nice but not truly necessary. I disagree with a lot of military leaders just like I disagree with civilian leaders.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 16 at 2015 5:06 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:06:06 -0400

I would say absolutely.

I have long lamented that since HWBush and Desert Storm, we haven't had a CINC who served. I feel that our CINCs have been too quick to send the troops in, and don't really understand the impact of what they are ordering. In reality, Reagan was the same way.

This isn't always true, but it's true enough...

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 16 at 2015 5:17 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:17:21 -0400

It's great for them to have military service, my three favorites:

President George Washington

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

President Ronald Reagan

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Mar 16 at 2015 9:15 AM

SFC William "Bill" Moore — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:15:02 -0400

Mine would be Regan or Lincoln. I don't think it should be a requirement, however. Some one that has ran a successful business would be a lot better than a community organizer! I know a few military folks that have never led troops in life threatening situations (no fault of their own, Cold War era) that could not lead a rain drop to the ground. And few of our military presidents have been mediocre at best.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 10:12 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:12:02 -0400

I don't know if they make better presidents but they have a better immediate understand of troop needs and concerns. Part of the reason the president has a cabinet with many military members on it is so that he can be counseled on troop needs in concerns. As long as the right people fill those slots and they listen to those people military service shouldn't matter.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 16 at 2015 10:16 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:16:05 -0400

Understanding the world of military life, trials and tribulations is but ONE component of what makes a Good president.

I would not want a law that required prior service for election to POTUS. As a fully qualified candidate that has great financial experience, fantastic foreign relations success, domestic policy experience might otherwise be cast aside.... for lack of a SINGLE good point.

Would I favor the candidate that had ALL of the above vs one that had it all except military service, you bet.

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Mar 16 at 2015 10:22 AM

TSgt Kevin Buccola — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:22:38 -0400

Roughly 13 have never been in the military - guess who is the 13th.... I would like to have a military person be the Commander in Chief - but not all can be.

However I really think that any Congressional or Senate Committee that is voting for military equipment, budgets etc need have served in the service.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 11:28 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:28:57 -0400

I think active duty status (active duty or Guard/Reserve called up to active for at least XX days) should be a requirement for all Federal political offices (President, Congress, Supreme Court, Cabinet positions).

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 16 at 2015 11:53 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:53:51 -0400

Yep. How can you expect someone who never wore the uniform to be as good a CIC as one who has?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 17 at 2015 10:23 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:23:13 -0400

President Carter was in the Navy..... Just sayin'....

Response by SPC Edward Tapper made Mar 18 at 2015 11:49 AM

SPC Edward Tapper — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:49:44 -0400

Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I feel like it should be pre-requisite to be the Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. My favorites are George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Not sure if Ronald Reagan was a veteran or not, but if he wasn't, he was my favorite non-veteran president. If he was, he tops my list of favorite veteran presidents.

Response by SPC Edward Tapper made Mar 18 at 2015 11:52 AM

SPC Edward Tapper — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:52:27 -0400

Yes, I do! Should be a requirement to serve as Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Mar 18 at 2015 1:19 PM

SFC Charles S. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:19:36 -0400

Yes, as a matter of Fact looking back at all of the Presidents with Military service, it should be a requirement to hold the office. Being commander in Chief without the knowledge of anything within that Title makes it meaningless. Leaders who don't know their subordinates cannot lead effectively. We should all petition our representatives to make this change to prevent non-Veterans from holding that top office without the experience to wield it's power.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Mar 18 at 2015 1:22 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:22:08 -0400

Good question and the answer is no! Prior service does not guarantee a thing. Look at Grant, Carter, and the rest. Presidents were no more and no less better for their prior service. What is needed is a love of country. Patriotism. A good and healthy respect for the military and its members. Then if you extend that thought to Congress, you will have admit that many of those clowns are prior service and still they lack patriotism and respect for the military. In the past couple of decades it may seem that way, but over the course of the history of nation, it is an even wash.

Response by TSgt Mark Vaughn made Mar 18 at 2015 1:23 PM

TSgt Mark Vaughn — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:23:20 -0400

That is a tough question. my opinion is this, to be the POTUS you need to be very well rounded but I do think national defense is at the forefront today because our ND is almost non existent. I believe that the POTUS needs to have a beyond the normal amount of patriotism due to the fact that you are the figure head for the whole nation. We didn't become a strong nation by the President and Congress bowing to every other nation. There is a reason we do not dip our flag to any other nations flag and I believe that we have forgotten that at the higher levels of government.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Mar 18 at 2015 1:51 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:51:22 -0400

There has probably never been a good President, so I would say no.

Response by PO3 Cindy Williams made Mar 18 at 2015 2:26 PM

PO3 Cindy Williams — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:13 -0400

Sometimes, they make great presidents. Jimmy Carter was the worse never gave the military a pay raise. My favorite is Bush the younger.

Response by SSgt Brandon Sisson made Mar 18 at 2015 2:27 PM

SSgt Brandon Sisson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:27:43 -0400

I will never understand why military service is not a requirement to be the POTUS

Response by 1SG Michael Farrell made Mar 18 at 2015 2:55 PM

1SG Michael Farrell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:55:25 -0400

Interesting problem. I think it's obviously a mixed bag. Sticking to the 20th Century, my favorite is probably Dwight Eisenhower, the General as Supreme Commander. The country was in great shape except for the open sore that was and remains Korea. He helped resolve that and then forced the various political and economic interests to work together. These were the skills he'd learned working for MacArthur, Marshall and then running the European Campaign with a mob of people following who all thought they could do his job better and that he was not paying attention to the sacred rights of La belle France or the Monarchy. Like a lot of Democratic Progressives today, I could comfortably claim to be an Eisenhower Republican.

Response by CW4 Jim Shelburn made Mar 18 at 2015 3:13 PM

CW4 Jim Shelburn — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:13:34 -0400

Not necessarily. I do not believe that Jimmy Carter was an effective President. Grant was very ineffective. The skills needed as a President are not always the same as those needed in the military.

Obviously, a President with a military background should have a better regard for the importance of the military, but he/she must also be effective within the political areas of government.

We have had strong Presidents that served in the military. The one person that had a strong military background, and the man that set the tone for the Presidency was George Washington. Without a doubt, he was the best President we have ever had. Theodore Roosevelt was also a good President.

We have had good Presidents that did not serve in the military. John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln are examples.

Response by SP5 Janet Kromka made Mar 18 at 2015 3:29 PM

SP5 Janet Kromka — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:29:35 -0400

My personal opinion is that they should be veterans. Not bringing into who served and who didn't but a person who has served has a certain pride in their country that you cannot get anywhere else....you will lay your life down for it. You will think twice about sending fellow military personal into harms way, not that they don't care, but you are connected to the military for life once served....in your heart. You are more in touch with your actions ...you are their Commander in Chief...what better way to be a Commander then to have walked in their shoes ....it just makes a more rounded President.

Response by Cpl Peter Cannella made Mar 18 at 2015 3:30 PM

Cpl Peter Cannella — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:30:45 -0400

Not necessarily. I think they have more appreciation for military men and women but that also comes with a higher expectation at times. When it comes to running the world or governing free people in the United States, I don't think it matters. What matters more is a President that understands the general public and passes laws in favor of them.

Response by CPO Malcum Malveaux made Mar 18 at 2015 3:36 PM

CPO Malcum Malveaux — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:36:34 -0400

Not at all - case in point - Pres Bush. That alone should put this question to rest. Iraq is a Disaster and the gift that just keeps giving.

Response by MCPO Hans Brakob made Mar 18 at 2015 3:47 PM

MCPO Hans Brakob — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:47:49 -0400

Doesn't seem to make much difference. Some good ones have been vets, and some poor ones have been vets.

My favorite was HST (yes, I'm that old) who was a vet.

Response by SFC Dean D. made Mar 18 at 2015 3:57 PM

SFC Dean D. — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:57:47 -0400

I believe service is highly desirable but not a requirement.
Those familiar with "Starship Troopers" know that (in that book & movie) only those who serve can hold political office or even vote. I would probably favor a scenario like that where the choice of service gives benefits of citizenship over not serving and being just a civilian.

Response by Col Russ Logan made Mar 18 at 2015 3:59 PM

Col Russ Logan — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:59:23 -0400

I would answer that vets do not necessarily make better Presidents (President Carter, as an example). Even more, the sheer weight of demographics is tipping the scale to the point that it will be an ever-increasing probability that our future Presidents will not be veterans. The force has been shrinking for quite a while now and thusly so has the pool of veterans from which a president might arise. And all of this while the population as a whole has been increasing leaving the percentage of the population that are veterans as a decreasing value.

As to the appellation of better, it all depends upon how any given President responds to the inevitable crises that arise, foreign and domestic, and how the policies put in place by them or their predecessors impact those responses. That is an unknowable until the garbage hits the fan. As a whole I would say that veteran Presidents are better at responding to some crises especially those that may involve our military but that, too, has not always proven true. Much more depends upon the advisors that any President chooses and what consideration and influence they have. That mix can at times be toxic, regardless of a given President's veteran status.

Favorite? Don't have one, just a few I admire more than others, and a few I despise. I will leave it at that.

Response by SrA Casey Ross made Mar 18 at 2015 4:00 PM

SrA Casey Ross — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:00:40 -0400

The Constitution does not require military service as a qualifier. If your countrymen agree that it should be, make a convincing argument and amend the Constitution. That said, a good President will possess a solid moral compass and be faithful to their oath and anchor to enumerated powers. Washington set the standard.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 18 at 2015 4:04 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:04:37 -0400

I think previous executive experience in a business or government role would weigh more. I would also like to see people that donate their time or personal dollars to charities and assisting others.

I think those would be better qualifications than being a veteran would, but that is not to say I would not want a veteran as a President.

Remember, being a veteran does not always make you a good choice for a politician: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/politics/montana-senator-john-walsh-plagiarized-thesis.html?_r=0

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 18 at 2015 4:09 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:09:40 -0400

Even if a President were a veteran, would that qualify them to be Commander-in-Chief? Eisenhower was the only one to serve at a command level even approaching that one. George H W Bush was an excellent diplomat which served him well in forming a coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. However, I don't think he learned those skills flying a torpedo bomber in WWII.Truman was a pretty good President. He only served as a captain of artillery in WWI. Grant had a lot of stars but only commanded an Army. Remember, the President commands every branch of service.

No, I don't look for military service of the person who would be President. I'm more concerned with who he would bring into his Administration. That's why I'm hoping that future Presidential candidates would name their proposed appointees so we could evaluate their ability to form and lead an effective Administration.

Lincoln was a master of the craft. He chose his rivals for the presidency to serve beside him. And you know he did a good job when every one of them headed the parade of mourners at his death. Although some were bitter rivals, all came to love him while working under him. That's the kind of leader we need more than ever.

And no, before you ask, having a bunch of Ivy League-educated ideologues serving as Czars is not a good qualification. In fact, it has proven to be a detriment...

Response by SSG Kali Montero made Mar 18 at 2015 4:09 PM

SSG Kali Montero — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:09:51 -0400

Clinton downsized the military and its bases. Obama giving our money away to foreign governments. Now wants to take away or shrink a lot of our benefits that veterans earned with our blood and believes you can win a war by shooting rockets. A Commander in Chief should have experience in the military. At the very least he would have felt what we felt and know how much our benefits and the right equipment and training going into battle mean to us.

Response by PO1 Dan Patrick made Mar 18 at 2015 4:13 PM

PO1 Dan Patrick — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:13:15 -0400

As a conservative, I think military service of some kind should be a requirement to hold a position as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on the planet. Most republican presidents served in some military capacity while most democrat presidents haven't and, in my opinion, republicans as a whole are better at the job. But do vets make better presidents? It depends. Carter, one of the worst, had military service. My favorite was probably Reagan with Bush, Sr. a close second; both served.

Response by SSgt David Love made Mar 18 at 2015 4:34 PM

SSgt David Love — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:34:13 -0400

Military service should be a requirement to hold ANY government office and exponentially so for the Presidency.

Expecting someone to excel at serving others when they've spent a lifetime serving only themselves is the recipe for the disaster we find ourselves knee deep in right now.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Mar 18 at 2015 5:04 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:04:29 -0400

I think so and I want to qualify this. I that that all of our Presidents "serve" --regardless of prior service / war-time service as they are our Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
It makes me cringe seeing the "Barney/Starbucks" salutes.

(now for anyone who cares)
I think ANY public service Military (A/RES/NG)/Intel Community/Police/EMT etc -- and of course those who serve the Nation as say a DoD / Civil Service Leader (FDR was SAC NAV)
and to a SMALLER INTENT "elected" office (barf). Seems to me that SOME get to Congress and forget what SERVICE means.

W = Hated him and questioned how he ended up in the Guard when (see below)
George HW = A personal hero of mine
Reagan served as a Res Cav officer before WWII. No one can deny how much he loved GIs
Carter=USNA Alumn. The consensus seems that he did/doing his best work Post Presidency
Nixon=Service experience didnt seem to influence him - thought????
LBJ = SHOW BOAT Some say almost fraudulent service record. But Great Society
JFK =Anyone who hasn't dug into Profiles in Courage and HIS record. Boston boy was for-real
Ike = A personal hero
Truman = I read he volunteered to REUP after Pearl Harbor. Marshall said your too old COL. Guy got gassed and had the stones to drop the bomb.
Roosevelt=SEC NAV and pissed a LOT of people off.

Response by PV2 Phillip Price made Mar 18 at 2015 5:06 PM

PV2 Phillip Price — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:06:54 -0400

Depends on if they were real soldiers or political minded carrier pushers

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 5:24 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:24:36 -0400

I think it all comes down to the indiviual. How many of us have known military leaders that we would not want to see in national office. And then you have people like Senator Cotton from my home state whose claim to leadership primarily revolved around being a Harvard grad and having served in the Army.

Response by Lt Col Keith Harrington made Mar 18 at 2015 5:29 PM

Lt Col Keith Harrington — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:29:56 -0400

In my opinion, the greatest US president in the last 50 years was Ronald Reagan. He did serve in the military, but due to his poor eyesight, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas in the military. I think military service is a benefit to being a president, but there a lot of other factors that make a good president.

Response by WO1 Antonio Borges made Mar 18 at 2015 5:45 PM

WO1 Antonio Borges — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:45:54 -0400

Yes. Bush, Sr. is my favorite

Response by SGT James Hunsinger made Mar 18 at 2015 6:20 PM

SGT James Hunsinger — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:20:12 -0400

I feel that in order to effectively lead the nation and more specifically the military in the role of Commander in Chief of all the U.S. military forces a President should have spent some time in the military. Experience in understanding what he/she is asking of the military when they order them into action, into harms way and potentially ordering them to their death is something I would like to see the President have.

Response by SSgt David Mandli made Mar 18 at 2015 7:06 PM

SSgt David Mandli — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:06:55 -0400

A military background could be an asset to a Commander In Chief but their moral character and leadership abilities are far more important when assessing their ability to execute their responsibilities as President. I believe that service in the military can provide a president with greater insight and heartfelt concern for the men and women he or she commands and the experience should have impacted their perspective on the importance of a strong military in the face of our ever more dangerous world. Case in point; Our current President lacks such experience and it is very apparent he does not value the military or acknowledge its importance in protecting the nation and the nation's interests. President Lincoln is considered as one of America's finest and President Grant, not so much.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Mar 18 at 2015 7:07 PM

SGT John Wesley — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:07:46 -0400

I'm going to say that being in the military wouldn't make you a great President, but it would definitely help in the leadership department! Saying that, I realize that not every high ranking General/Admiral should go run for office... Remember Admiral Stockdell?

Response by Capt Layne Barrack made Mar 18 at 2015 8:31 PM

Capt Layne Barrack — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:31:04 -0400

From this point forward...Every Candidate for President should have served in Uniform in my opinion...It's all about having a history, dedication and prior oath to Service to Our Country.

Response by SP5 R D Barnett made Mar 18 at 2015 8:46 PM

SP5 R D Barnett — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:46:14 -0400

Yes,The Commander-in-Chief should have been an Officer in the military,to under stand the chain of command and respect The Laws of The USA. The military protects The USA and The Commander-in-Chief should know the best way to keep them READY. Let the Congress make the Laws.

Response by PO2 Phillip Bearden made Mar 18 at 2015 9:12 PM

PO2 Phillip Bearden — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:12:10 -0400

My Favorite was John F. Kennedy. But I did like the raises I got when Carter was in office.

Response by PO1 Keith Williams made Mar 18 at 2015 9:23 PM

PO1 Keith Williams — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:23:04 -0400

D. Eisenhower,J.Kennedy,G.Bush n--all heroes---Great Presidents. Id say yes!! However. Jimmy Carter is a Vet also!

Response by PO1 Russell Rowe made Mar 18 at 2015 9:23 PM

PO1 Russell Rowe — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:23:41 -0400

Yes, for sure. It your talking about the ones in this pic. I would have to say yes to Bush Sr, but all all the past presidents, I would have to go with JFK.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 9:23 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:23:48 -0400

I think, yes. I answered yes because a prior service President won't have the wool pulled over their eyes, like our current president. Johnson was a farce. Gen.Westmoreland told him what he wanted to hear. He didn't know how to handle that war. The only thing he was sure of was all those dollars he was getting for having Brown & Root stock. He did serve in the Navy Reserve: from what I read, he lied about a combat mission he was on. I know this isn't about LBJ, but I detest that liar.

After America entered World War II in December 1941, Johnson, still in Congress, became a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, then asked Undersecretary of the Navy James Forrestal for a combat assignment.[23] He was sent instead to inspect the shipyard facilities in Texas and on the West Coast. In the spring of 1942, President Roosevelt needed his own reports on what conditions were like in the Southwest Pacific. Roosevelt felt information that flowed up the military chain of command needed to get delivered by a highly trusted political aide. From a suggestion by Forrestal, President Roosevelt assigned Johnson to a three-man survey team of the Southwest Pacific.[24]

Johnson reported to General Douglas MacArthur in Australia. Johnson and two Army officers went to the 22nd Bomb Group base, which was assigned the high risk mission of bombing the Japanese airbase at Lae in New Guinea. A colonel took Johnson's allocated seat on one bomber, and it was shot down with no survivors. Reports vary on what happened to the B-26 Marauder carrying Johnson. He said it was also attacked by Japanese fighters but survived, while others, including other members of the flight crew, claim it turned back because of generator trouble before reaching the objective and before encountering enemy aircraft and never came under fire; this is supported by official flight records.[25] Other airplanes that continued to the target did come under fire near the target at about the same time that Johnson's plane was recorded as having landed back at the original airbase. MacArthur awarded Johnson the Silver Star, the military's third-highest medal.[25]

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Mar 18 at 2015 9:26 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:26:34 -0400

In my opinion, they have a better understanding for DUTY, HONOR COUNTRY in respect to serving in the military. I think that makes the difference as Commander-in-Chief.

Response by Cpl Scott Clark made Mar 18 at 2015 9:41 PM

Cpl Scott Clark — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:41:27 -0400

Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr.

Response by SSgt Al Dutton made Mar 18 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSgt Al Dutton — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:38:59 -0400

Community Organizers certainly do NOT! Especially disbarred Lawyer Community Organizers who did a LOT of Drugs don't. Shall I go on? There are plenty more reasons the Kenyan Muslim is a rotten POTUS.

Response by SPC Rob Durling made Mar 18 at 2015 10:48 PM

SPC Rob Durling — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:48:07 -0400

For the president to fulfill his duties as Commander-in-Chief, absolutely! As our country's chief diplomat, it's debatable. As our chief legislator, trying to deal with Congress, especially if our legislative branch is recalcitrant, I don't see how being a veteran would help. The character of our president would be more important, I should think. Would being a former member in our military determine character? Another debatable premise. Ultimately, I don't think it would matter. Personally I would prefer a president with military experience, but it would depend on the person more than anything else.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:21 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:21:15 -0400

I personally don't think serving in the military would make someone any stronger or weaker of a leader. I do believe that serving would definitely bring more appreciation for our armed forces. But I dont think it would make them any better or worse than the next guy. I've met some pretty hard core civilians with out an ounce of military experience

Response by MSG Gregg Winn made Mar 19 at 2015 12:41 AM

MSG Gregg Winn — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:41:05 -0400

I've had some exemplary leaders in the military, and some that couldn't lead a dog on a leash.

As far as Presidents, Ronald Reagan had minimal service, and was the best President of my lifetime. Jimmy Carter had Naval Academy, and was terrible.

Bill Clinton had none, but committed crimes with subordinates, that would have had placed any uniformed servicemember in Leavenworth. Barack Obama, the jury is still out on him, but I'm not overly impressed.

Likewise, someone who was a great leader in the MIlitary did not impress me with his civilian leadership as Secretary of State...Colin Powell. I think he is a "go along to get along..." This disappoints me, because I really wanted him in the position.

I will always give deference to someone who served, but as far as I am concerned, their views on the Constitution trump everything. .

Response by TSgt John William made Mar 19 at 2015 12:44 AM

TSgt John William — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:44:02 -0400

Reagan

Response by SGT Joshua Michael made Mar 19 at 2015 12:47 AM

SGT Joshua Michael — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:47:01 -0400

I believe presidents who served have a better grasp of what makes this country great and also they understand the importance of the military as well as the difficulties/hardships that come with serving in the military. Obama has never cared for military. He is the 1st president since vietnam to lower the pay percentage in which military receives. Also he is damn near balancing the national budget deficit on military/veterans backs. It's shameful.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:58 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:58:43 -0400

Since 1928 only Hoover, FDR, Clinton and Obama have not served in some compactly in the military. Those alum include JFK, Truman, Ike, and Reagan. All of which are in the top tier in presidential rankings. Of the four that I mentioned did not serve, three are some of the most controversial presidents in the last 100 years. One was impeached, one allowed the situation with the depression to reach epic proportions and the last one is polarizing and dividing this country like no other president since 1860 and who believes he is above the constitution. So.... I don't know about anyone else, but as to the question posed I'd say the proof is in the pudding. Besides, how can you order a soldier to make a sacrifice you, yourself objected to or were either unable or unwilling to make?

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 2:26 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:26:05 -0400

absolutely , look at the idiot we have now, what a loser.

Response by PO2 Tom Sirard made Mar 19 at 2015 7:41 AM

PO2 Tom Sirard — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:41:06 -0400

I believe that military service adds to the spectrum of life experiences that I want my CIC to have. I think it is far more important that all of our elected officials have had a real, non-government job somewhere in their adult life.

Response by Cpl Reginald Zenkewich made Mar 19 at 2015 9:35 AM

Cpl Reginald Zenkewich — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:35:10 -0400

Marinesd are a separate entity in OUR military circles and are more combat trained than any regular army member and The Marines should stay separated from the army. I as a former marine do not like the idea ofcombining the army and Marines because the army has more cowards in it that heroes. Never heard of a Marine leaving his post and joining the enemy like burgdal the traitor tohis unit and to the army and to OUR nation ! ! ! !

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 19 at 2015 10:03 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:03:34 -0400

If you look at the list of Presidents who have served, 27 have some type of military service. From Washington to G.W. Bush.

http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/20110221a.asp

The above link lists all of the presidents who have served, and in what capacity. My favorite president personally was Harry S. Truman. I am glad that when it came time to make the decision as to whether or not to use nuclear weapons on Japan, that the person ultimately responsible was someone with an understanding of war.

I do not necessarily think that military service in its own right will make someone a better president, but it does show a prior dedication to serving the nation. What I really think would make a better president is a person who remembers that holding the office of president is a service to the nation.

Military Roots: Presidents who were Veterans - Veterans Health Administration

Military Roots: Presidents who were Veterans

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Mar 19 at 2015 10:20 AM

PO1 Aaron Baltosser — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:12 -0400

Absolutely! Dwight D. Eisenhower is one example. Reagan and Bush senior are others. Teddy Roosevelt as well. The use of military force is one of the many tools available to the President. The only way that actually works is if the President is familiar with that tool, and how to use it. You wouldn't expect a man that has never held a hammer to build you a house. You also wouldn't expect someome that has zero knowledge what the use of military force looks like to effectively wield it. The current administration is a good example of that. Deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq increased after over restrictive ROE's were put in place because lack of comprehension in warfighting. A veteran would not have had that problem.

Response by PV2 Alaina Norman made Mar 19 at 2015 11:02 AM

PV2 Alaina Norman — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:02:08 -0400

you know i honestly never had this question in my mind until obama took office. I know hes our commander and cheif and we need to respect him but i honestly don't. This conversation actually came up this last weekend with my aunt and uncle. They said not everyone who serves would make a good president and it should not reflect there which i do have some agreeable terms on that, but not all. I was never a big bush fan but i noticed one thing that separates him over our current. He cares about our military; force that goes to the front line to defend this country. You don't see many photos of obama doing this. NO offense to anyone who likes him but hes more worried about taking care of other countries than the ones hes running and i just don't understand it. First time elected i game him a chance, that time is gone. Being military doesn't ness make you a good future president but i do think that one understands more about what they will be getting into and maybe what this country needs.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Mar 19 at 2015 11:59 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:59:09 -0400

I had to check, but President Lincoln was a veteran or the Black Hawk War. Since he is one of my all time favorites I'd have to agree that veterans make better presidents.

Response by PO3 Robert Gunderson made Mar 19 at 2015 12:05 PM

PO3 Robert Gunderson — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:05:22 -0400

The way I see it, the military based experience is useful for a president because he has been under "fire" in many ways. He knows how his branch of the service will work out a problem and may have connections still in the military. When it is time for armed conflict I would want a president with this knowledge in the White House, not one who got there because he had a degree from some high and mighty Collage or University, unless it came before or after his time in service or a military acadamy. Still there are some who will question the validity of such training. I think over half of our presidents were in the military in some capacity.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 2:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:02:31 -0400

It should be mandatory.

Response by MSgt Scott Gaston made Mar 19 at 2015 2:35 PM

MSgt Scott Gaston — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:35:29 -0400

Although one might think the automatic answer to this question is resoundingly yes, a quick scan of the photo (far Right) may shed some doubt. Let's not forget President Carter was a Naval Officer and is (or was) considered one (1) of the worst Commander's in Chief on record (or certainly in the modern age). I still have to say in most cases, the answer is yes. When you look at a business, the most successful CEOs have climbed the ladder and have a broad knowledge of the industry. The Captain of a ship has worked his way up from Ensign, etc...

How can a leader be truly that, having never experienced that which they would lead?!

Response by PO1 Henry Sherrill made Mar 19 at 2015 3:40 PM

PO1 Henry Sherrill — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:40:56 -0400

OH Hell YES They do.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 6:37 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:37:59 -0400

I would say as a general statement, yes a veteran would make a better president. But, with that being said I think that some "veterans" did not take the training given the most effort and to them it is just a category they fit in. I have ALWAYS felt that the individual in charge, the Commander in Chief, should have military experience, so that he/she is not leading a military blindly and without knowledge of how things work.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 6:43 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:43:27 -0400

Yes.

Response by PO2 Raymond Seward made Mar 19 at 2015 6:59 PM

PO2 Raymond Seward — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:59:39 -0400

I'm a firm believer that anyone who wishes to hold a position in our government from Congressman to President should have served in the military, and when I say served in the military I mean active duty not some champagne reserve unit. It seems to me that to many of our politicians have done everything in their power to avoid serving, yet want to hold the position of Commander and Chief or a position such as Congressman, the very ones who determine if we go to war. It bothers me to no end to hear of these draft dodging SOB's running for President. Then again I believe that everyone at the age of 18 should be required to serve a minimum of 2 years in the military, with only 1 exception and that's medical, determined by a military doctor. As for the original question, I do believe that a President who has served in the military does make a better President. Then again if Senator McCain had become President I might have said otherwise. Now there's a veteran who has never met a war he didn't like and every single time something happens in the world, all he ever wants to do is put boots on the ground.

Response by SGT Marika Waiters made Mar 19 at 2015 8:14 PM

SGT Marika Waiters — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:14:58 -0400

I have ALWAYS firmly believed that a president should be required to have military experience. I think the discipline and the camaraderie of the military serves itself well in a president. It also affords the President a look into how the military functions so that he/she can appropriately utilize and fund the military and its veterans.

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Mar 19 at 2015 8:29 PM

PO2 David Hagwood — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:29:56 -0400

I believe the role of Commander-in-Chief should be held by someone with military experience. It's not good for someone to hold that title and not have a clue about what it means to have been in the military. Experience is greater knowledge. You get wisdom from experience. I am willing to make exceptions if the candidate were to show certain traits that they could be receptive enough to learn and be willing to listen to our military leader's advice, make wise tactical decisions, not make political decisions to gain in popularity. A C in C should not play political games with the military.

Response by CPL Jesse Vasconcelos made Mar 19 at 2015 9:37 PM

CPL Jesse Vasconcelos — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:37:37 -0400

A Veteran president is such an important require if any. How can you command the greatest and most powerful military in the world and have no experience with none of our Armed Forces. If they can be brave enough to lead our country they should be brave enough to serve like all of us.

Response by SPC Patrick Gearardo made Mar 19 at 2015 10:37 PM

SPC Patrick Gearardo — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:37:03 -0400

Being in the military CAN'T make them a better President but it should be a requirement to BE a President. Whoever is in charge of our military should, at least, have military experience. Only someone who has worn the uniform knows about the flaws, quirks, accomplishments of our soldiers.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 19 at 2015 10:51 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:51:54 -0400

I'm reserving judgement until after my 2nd term.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 19 at 2015 11:00 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:00:02 -0400

I will just say this and please do not make an inference from my statement, but if we had a President who is a veteran in some form or manner, he or she might care more about service members and veterans. Also, whoever is President and is veteran would never suggest that service members should pay for their health care. In addition, if there were more congressional officers who are veterans, they might think twice before slowly chipping away at our benefits.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 20 at 2015 5:04 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:04:17 -0400

Well, two of my favorite presidents are Dwight D. Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, both veterans. But being a veteran is not enough. A veteran makes a great president if they understand how undesirable war is, and how it should be the last resort to any situation. A veteran makes a great president if they carry over their desire to serve the American people before their own interests. A veteran makes a great president if they uphold their oath to protect and defend the constitution above all else, and place it over their own ideologies and beliefs, especially when it comes to the amendments. A veteran makes a great president if they remember that the American populace is very diverse, and you must serve those you disagree with as well, and take into account all Americans', in conjunction with the constitution, regardless of personal belief.

I have met many a veteran that embodies these traits. I have also met many a veteran that is the opposite of these traits. Being a veteran is not enough, you must be a servant to America, disregarding what you want and believe in favor of her and her peoples' interests.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Mar 20 at 2015 10:29 AM

1SG Patrick Sims — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:29:08 -0400

When Presidents have military experience they have the common sense to let generals fight the wars---When they have no military experience, wars are fought by lawyers and young people will die unnecessarily. THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 20 at 2015 10:46 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:46:01 -0400

I certainly think that having served in the military gives the president a better understanding to be able to perform his role as Commander-In-Chief. In addition, I think it helps him get the respect from the troops than he would otherwise get if he had not served.

Does serving in the military guarantee his success as president? No One just needs to look at folks like former president Jimmy Carter to see that.

My favorite? Probably Ronald Reagan.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Mar 20 at 2015 2:19 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:19:19 -0400

I think so and If I could run for office I would,just probably wouldn't survive very long with the changes I would incorporate...

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Mar 20 at 2015 2:46 PM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:46:26 -0400

I do think that having service under your belt should,make for a better president. At least they would have an idea of what men and women go through while serving and also they did their time for the country.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 6:34 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:34:26 -0400

We have had some great Generals as President and I think it's a good thing to have served your country, especially if you are going to lead it. (I'd go so far as to make some form of service a requirement for voting. If you aren't pulling on an oar, you have no right to steer the ship. Service could include volunteering at the local hospital, or teaching in an inner city or rural area.)

But I don't think being a CPT in the National Guard (Bush 2) or a LT the Navy (Kerry) is any kind of qualification to be President.

Response by PO2 James Craig made Mar 20 at 2015 9:34 PM

PO2 James Craig — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:34:51 -0400

I think the skill sets and the experience gained while serving can successfully be applied to every facet of being a good President. The leadership, communication and problem solving skills along with honor, integrity, unwavering principles and the ability to manage people with wide ranging personality types. Where is the down side?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 9:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:38:55 -0400

Yes. My opinion is how can you be over the military and don't truly understand how the military works.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 10:45 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:45:47 -0400

I think any President who has at least served in the military understands the challenges facing his military leadership and perhaps then in turn would be more willing to offer a strong backing of the military. This may not make him of her a better president over all but in my eyes I welcome a strong Commander-in-Chief who understands what it's like to walk in our boots.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Mar 21 at 2015 5:24 AM

SGT Rick Ash — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:24:40 -0400

Yes, they certainly do. Would you want to be in a foxhole with Obama?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 8:17 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:17:53 -0400

Do you view GW Bush time with the TX National Guard, AL National Guard, and Air Force Reserve as military service or dodging the draft and service in Viet Nam?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7372-2004Feb2.html

Bush's Guard Service In Question (washingtonpost.com)

In recent days, a one-year gap in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service during the height of the Vietnam War has been raised by Democrats.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 8:41 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:41:41 -0400

Lincoln served just short of 3 months in the IL militia. He started as a CPT and ended as a PVT, then "spy". I think he was disenrolled and had to reenlisted 3 times in less than 3 months that made up his entire military career before he became Commander-In-Chief.

But to quote honest Abe Lincoln: "I was out of work and there being no danger of more fighting, I could do nothing better than enlist again."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 12:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:58:37 -0400

My simple response is absolutely

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 1:03 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:03:21 -0400

In my opinion yes it makes a very distinct difference.

Response by SPC John Decker made Mar 22 at 2015 4:38 PM

SPC John Decker — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:38:24 -0400

When military matters come into play, I would say yes. All of the rest of the time, I don't think it has an effect, one way or the other.

Response by SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi made Mar 22 at 2015 4:46 PM

SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:46:40 -0400

Yes, I think the president should be former military. At least they see our side of the story. And know what it's like to serve and be a soldier, marine, etc. I also think they should make the military mandatory for at least two years.

Response by Cpl Charles Vadnais made Mar 22 at 2015 5:33 PM

Cpl Charles Vadnais — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:33:15 -0400

While its not a foolproof concept, there is definitely a correlation between the quality of a President and their history as a member of the US military. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_military_service) It also seems to tie into what rank they held as well. While there are exceptions like Nixon, there are others like JFK, Reagan and several others who are regarded as good Presidents by nearly everyone and have a history of military service.

Now I can't tell you exactly why this is but I'd like to believe that service, especially as an officer, and especially as a combat veteran like Teddy Roosevelt or JFK, gives them a certain selflessness and authority that others have respect for that makes the House and Senate more likely to cooperate with them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 7:22 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:22:58 -0400

I think this is a very loaded question, but I'm going to have to say no. The reason why we have great presidents and piss poor presidents is because we have presidents that at least try and do what's good for the whole country, and we have presidents that believe they only serve the half that got them elected. Now, with that being said, I don't think serving in the military should be a prerequisite, but, it might make them realize that being in any form of government service makes them a part of something bigger than themselves.

The reason why some of the presidents have turned out so much better than others could just be pure circumstance (right person at the right time), and why others were mediocre at best is simply that no "major events" happened at that time.

Response by PO1 Stephen Caldonetti made Mar 23 at 2015 12:00 AM

PO1 Stephen Caldonetti — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:05 -0400

I feel that it should be a criteria because they are the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, and the experience will help that person make better decisions for our troops. My personal favorite is Theodore Roosevelt. He was the Secretary of the Navy, and he gave up his post to lead the Rough Riders during the Spanish-American War. He was a great leader as President, and he did many positive things for our country. His place on Mt. Rushmore is rightfully deserved.
ma

Response by SSG Peter Muse made Mar 23 at 2015 2:23 AM

SSG Peter Muse — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 02:23:42 -0400

I want to try and answer this one as it is asked; Do Veterans make better Presidents? While many of us like knowing our Commander in Chief served in the Armed Forces because of the obvious connections, history shows that military service did not make (the majority of them) better Presidents. Our two world wars war led by non Veteran Presidents and some of our greatest field commanders had mediocre (at best) Presidencies. (Grant and Ike). America is protected by a strong defense but America thrives when the economy is strong and we are best when making advancements in our infrastructure while keeping the right global posturing. Every President who made decisions during war is documented as having made grave misjudgments that were more political than tactical in nature.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 2:57 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 02:57:09 -0400

Not necessarily.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 4:36 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:36:50 -0400

Not necessarily. Carter was a horrible president. That said, it wouldn't be a bad thing for the person being the Commander-in-chief to have served in the military.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Mar 24 at 2015 10:44 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:44:08 -0400

I don't believe that having military experience makes you a better president. I think it's the individuals who have surrounded themselves with great people with specialties and are able to use common sense to make an educated decision. Military experience may help them in making a decision but over all does not make them a better president. My thoughts.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 2:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:08:30 -0400

I actually think that it should be mandatory. We don't need another community advisor, that's for sure. The benefit of having first hand experience regarding the military and their missions is a plus for the Commander in Chief. It shows his/her patriotism, it's an example of leadership, it helps prepare them for the political strains. I mean, there are just great reasons why one Should be.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 4:30 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:30:50 -0400

They seem to.

Response by Capt Christian D. Orr made Mar 26 at 2015 10:39 PM

Capt Christian D. Orr — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:39:49 -0400

I wouldn't say being a veteran automatically makes one a better President, but it certainly bolsters their credibility on military-related issues.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Cuthbertson made Mar 28 at 2015 8:36 AM

SPC Jeffrey Cuthbertson — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:36:19 -0400

Every man of this nation including the Political tops should have to have serve some time in Service. In order to lead however they should have those qualified command Armed Forces. Stay in your lane type order.

Response by SFC Michael MacLuskie made Apr 8 at 2015 11:55 AM

SFC Michael MacLuskie — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:55:25 -0400

In one word "YES" and history more than proves that.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 6:02 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:02:10 -0400

President Franklin Roosevelt served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. I get the chills when I hear him talk about WWII and his resolute approach to winning the war. It was more his way of saying this is what we are going to do.

Response by PO2 Terry Meadows made May 21 at 2015 3:41 PM

PO2 Terry Meadows — Thu, 21 May 2015 15:41:50 -0400

Yes

Response by TSgt Mark Vaughn made May 28 at 2015 1:18 PM

TSgt Mark Vaughn — Thu, 28 May 2015 13:18:56 -0400

Do Culinary Graduates make better meatloaf than your mom? It's a Rhetorical question I'm afraid. Yes as CnC a president with Military background would make a much better president from the military point of view, but does that qualify them for Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, International Relations, who knows? What I do know is that a President needs to look at the whole job and not just the parts they are interested in, they may be good speakers or ambassador's but that doesn't mean they know anything about something else. In today's state of America I believe we need a president who is not only pro military but also believes that it is the people that are supposed to run this country not the Camelot knights at the table on Capitol hill that run the country. So yes I believe in some ways a military background is a plus for a country who has let it's military fall behind the rest of the world, 200,000 people short from the last time I saw how many folks we've drawn down. I want a President who when they take office is not swaying towards dems or repubs but one who looks at both sides, does his homework and make a decision based on what the people want, and to secure out nation. We did well when other countries feared us, now they laugh at us.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jul 10 at 2015 9:51 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:51:14 -0400

My personal belief is that Military service is some capacity is a requirement for the position of "Commander in Chief". To me it's simple logic to hire someone for the "job" that has experience in the field.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jul 16 at 2015 3:03 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:03:19 -0400

Well the first one turned out great. George Washington, but my favorite General Eisenhower.

Response by SGT James Korman made Jul 23 at 2015 1:28 PM

SGT James Korman — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:28:16 -0400

Throughout History successful nations have been led by military leaders, with certain exceptions the world is poorer place without real - war tested - military commanders at the forefront of their nations!

Response by TSgt Kevin Miller made Jul 30 at 2015 12:29 AM

TSgt Kevin Miller — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:29:22 -0400

I think that one of the requirements to be president should be to have served in the US military. That's just my opinion. It is just odd to me that there can be Commander in Chiefs who control the military, but who have never served. I don't have a favorite but I know that Kennedy was a true was hero. You already mentioned Bush Sr. Bush Jr served in the Air Guard, and that counts in my book. Carter was a naval officer. Clinton and Obama never served. I don't all the past presidents' histories off hand, but as another example, i know that Teddy Roosevelt was a war hero.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 7 at 2015 4:06 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:06:20 -0400

It should be a constitutional amendments that prior military service is mandatory as a prerequisite to run for the Office of the President. No exceptions.

Response by CPO James Page made Oct 8 at 2015 1:01 PM

CPO James Page — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:01:33 -0400

I don't believe it is a requisite for a President to have a military background. It takes many attributes to be a good President. A man of honor, having a well-rounded experience, being well educated, having a good knowledge of how our Republic functions. I can go on forever but I am sure you get my drift. Being a politician is not one of those needed attributes. It would mean he has too many favors to return. I am not sure I could name a past President who was outstanding. Eisenhower, FDR (some may not agree with this choice but during his administrations many problems were met and solved and most of all was a good Commander-in-Chief during WWII). Many people think Truman was a good president and I agree. He inherited WWII and helped end it. JFK did not live long enough in office to be a good or bad President. I can add no one else to that list.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 3:01 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:01:15 -0400

I don't think that's necessarily true. Carter was a veteran and a horrible president.

Response by SFC Michael MacLuskie made Oct 12 at 2015 7:48 PM

SFC Michael MacLuskie — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:48:08 -0400

I certainly have to agree with your statement regarding a mandatory military service background for any presidential candidate and I believe that this should also be required of any elected or appointed federal official e.g. congress, the senate, DoJ, SoS etc. and those serving on the supreme court too.

Response by Capt Russ Fleming made Nov 27 at 2015 11:05 AM

Capt Russ Fleming — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:05:00 -0500

Obama/Obiden are the first in American history that have no military service between them ... and it shows

Response by Capt Russ Fleming made Nov 27 at 2015 11:13 AM

Capt Russ Fleming — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -0500

Military service experience either in president/vice president makes the best White House/Presidents.. example ummmm Obama/Obiden are the first in America history with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE between them .... they use the military for their social experiments, and show little respect

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jul 13 at 2018 9:00 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:00:53 -0400

Depending on how that individual internalized their experiences, I still believe a Veteran would be a more balanced choice than a civilian.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jul 13 at 2018 9:30 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:30:18 -0400

Veterans are just a subset of society as a whole with very unique, individual experiences. My answer is NO. I don't think you can make a generalization like that. There are good Vets and bad Vets, just like there are good and bad people.