Should military service be a requirement for future government leadership positions?

2014-01-13T16:57:24-05:00

Should military service be a requirement for future government leadership positions (including State and Federal Offices) such as Mayors, Governors, Senators, and even Presidential Candidates?

I feel that by making military service a prerequisite for future government office, it would dramatically close the gap between career politicians and those that have served. Making service a required criteria, we would see increased respect and understanding for veterans (and the service we provide) by government officials, a greater sense of community through a common ground approach to help elevate our nation, and fewer lop-sided debates on how best to proceed with our country's future.

What are your thoughts?

Response by SGT Christopher Barker made Jan 13 at 2014 5:05 PM

2014-01-13T17:05:26-05:00

I will go out on a limb and say yes for the Presidential seat because it has been common in history that Presidents have had prior device, just not designated so. I think that if the President is getting on/off Air Force One or into/off of Marine Force One and he is saluting the Honor Guard then it only seems prudent to have prior military service.

The challenges, comraderie, service to country and knowledge of what the actual stakes are on the front lines to protect our country are all seemingly simple core values to have in order to lead an entire nation if you ask me.

As for State officials, I could be swayed either way.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 5:15 PM

2014-01-13T17:15:34-05:00

Yeah at least a year and not just conus but they should spend some time oconus to experience what we went thru. Maybe that way they will realize what we are all about.

Response by SSG Matthew Thomas made Jan 13 at 2014 5:33 PM

2014-01-13T17:33:15-05:00

I am torn. I would say YES because I learned more about my country and have a greater sense of pride after serving. The only problem I see with making a standard is if I could not join because of an illness or some other condition. Then my hopes and dreams of changing the country and making a difference is shot down. Just because of something that is out of my control hinders me from holding political office.

I do believe serving in the military is a great bullet on your political resume. i believe and would vote for more veterans because of that.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jan 13 at 2014 5:38 PM

2014-01-13T17:38:32-05:00

I'm going to go ahead and be the first to say No. Elected officials have many other concerns besides foreign affairs and the military, especially below the national level. Military service is also not an end-all to distinguish who is a good person or not. Career politicians, if they felt so inclined, could do a few years in a reserve unit and call it good. You can't mandate an overseas or combat requirement, in the future that might be very difficult to come by, so you would end up with a very small pool to choose from. Finally, just because someone knows how to lead troops doesn't make them effective at leading a government and in all likelihood would create animosity due to the military and veterans receiving undue benefits.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 5:46 PM

2014-01-13T17:46:13-05:00

It's a nice thought. But impractical. I believe the Constitution provides all the requirements we need. Otherwise we'd exclude some good presidents like FDR, Wilson, and John Quincy Adams. Many of our presidents only had militia service and had never served in the military as we know it today. Additionally I'd say it's presumptuous to state that only military service "counts". And what if you have a disability that precludes you? Earlier today I shared this video of GEN McChrystal:

Franklin Project: Gen. McChrystal Introduction

The Franklin Project is a new venture by the Aspen Institute to marshal the best case for a voluntary civilian counterpart to military service in the United ...

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 13 at 2014 5:52 PM

2014-01-13T17:52:34-05:00

That is a very interesting question. The Honorable, MR. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense may have been slightly disrespected by General Officers who might have seen MR. Gate's lack of a military experience as incompetency or failure to understand all things military. Perhaps MR. Gates explains this in his new book.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 6:05 PM

2014-01-13T18:05:55-05:00

Albeit a good idea to have elected officials serve in the Armed Forces for a period of time, to see how the other half lives, I don't believe it would be for the best.
Since only about 3% of the population can stay they served in the military, it makes it a very prestigious accolade. If it became a requirement, there goes the prestige of serving. However, on a positive note, perhaps more choices would be made with a perspective that took into account the secondary or tertiary effects. Along with that I believe that some of the idiocracies that are committed by current politicians would fall by the way-side.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 6:18 PM

2014-01-13T18:18:52-05:00

I just want our Representative's and other elected officials to actually REPRESENT US. I think the best representative government would be a good mixture of former soldiers, teachers, scientists, doctors, accountants, construction workers, etc... So that way when we have people on an Education Committee, a Budget Committee, Armed Services Committee; so on and so on, they would actually have expertise in what they're talking about. Right now all we have is lawyers, lobbyists, career politicians, and business executives. These individuals are so out of touch with reality, it's really no wonder they have a single percentage approval rating. That and term limits...

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 7:05 PM

2014-01-13T19:05:20-05:00

An addendum, if such a requirement existed, during a draw down, as we're in now, we'd have an increasing percentage of political aspirants in our ranks. I frankly wouldn't want a bunch of political wannabes around us putting in the bare minimum because it's "required".

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2014 9:37 PM

2014-01-13T21:37:50-05:00

I see no connection between military service and good government.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2014 10:11 PM

2014-06-17T22:11:27-04:00

Not to be a total geek, but that is kind of like Starship Troopers. Contribute military service for citizenship.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 12:34 AM

2014-07-19T00:34:00-04:00

If you have the power and authority to send hundreds of thousands of people to war, you ought to know a bit about it yourself.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 10:27 AM

2014-10-10T10:27:46-04:00

There was an interesting book by Robert Heinlein that proposed a military service requirement not only to run for office, but even to vote. The rational is that only those who are willing to put their own lives on the line for their country should have a say in running it.

It's a very tempting idea, but I don't think it would be a good idea. I do believe that service of some sort should be a requirement, but there are many organizations that teach people to sacrifice for others, of which the military is only one (and the best armed). As long as a leader has learned (and internalized) the principles of sacrifice and selfless service, I think they would make a good political leader, regardless of where they learned those lessons.