Do Veterans make better Presidents?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.