Do Veterans make better Presidents?

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.

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.

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 ! ! ! !

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.