32
32
0
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics Office of the President (POTUS)
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 129
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SFC Brian Lehnhardt
Military service is not a requirement to be the Commander and Chief, and should stay that way. That being said, I don't think its any better or worse. Reagan cut defense spending; Bush senior took us to war in Panama and Kuwait, then cut troop numbers; Clinton gave pay raises and sent us to war in Bosnia. Bush Jr. sent us to war on two fronts (almost three), and bolstered defense spending and pay raises. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, working on Afghanistan, but cut defense spending and slowed down pay raises, and is entertaining cuts in benefits and retiree pay. Doesn't matter what political party your candidate comes from - they've all affected the military in some way, shape or form, for the good and the bad. Military service may garner some respect, but sound and fair policy would better win me over than military service.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
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
ma
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Of course, those serving in the house and senate would have to be the same way , not the group of chuckleheads we have right now that can't find their way out of a wet paper bag because their heads are stuck up big money's asses.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
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."
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."
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google