Service requirement for Congress, President, and cabinet appointees?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:30:40 -0500

Do you think the political meddling would be checked if there was a requirement for members of the Congress, Cabinet Appointees, and the President were required to serve in the armed forces?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 8:33 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:33:09 -0500

I believe the military should be subject to civilian authority. I also think its a good idea for those officials to have served in the armed forces so they understand the consequences and gravity of the decisions they make.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 6 at 2015 9:22 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:22:33 -0500

It would definitely decrease the number of qualified people to run for office or hold cabinet positions. With that I do not agree with a service requirement since US Constitution spells out the requirements for President, Senators, and Congressmen so this would require a constitutional amendment which will not pass for a vote. As far as a cabinet position that is usually up to the person in the White House.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Feb 6 at 2015 9:25 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:25:00 -0500

I am kind of mixed on this...
On the one hand, some military service would give some perspective that you just can't get anywhere else...just like being unemployed, being homeless, even some prison time would give you a unique perspective...call it life education.
But at the same time, just because someone joins for 4 years, maybe makes E4, doesn't deploy and then gets out...are they really more fit to be president than someone who never wore the uniform but otherwise has their $hit together and can think strategically??
Your argument makes the assumption that everyone who joins is a real american, life sacrificing hero...not everyone in uniform is...case in point, an E8 that once worked for me, deployed once, lied about PTSD and loving his 95% rating...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 6 at 2015 9:50 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:50:40 -0500

I think there would be more.

"Knowing just enough to be dangerous"

I pose this question to you LTC Private RallyPoint Member, "do you think a General Officer, any General Officer is going to have less Strategic/Operational/Tactical knowledge than a former E3?"

Putting a requirement to have military service is best described as an "artificial barrier to entry."

Although I agree with it "in theory" I am opposed to it "in practice."

Perhaps 10% of the populace joins the military. Having military service as a requirement would essentially reduce the number of viable candidates for public service by 90%. Furthermore, what about those who are physically unable to serve in the military? The president does not have any physical duties. President Roosevelt, Taft, and even Washington (who suffered a myriad of health problems) proved that physical fitness weren't requirements for office. So like I mentioned "artificial barrier for entry."

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 4:21 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:21:55 -0500

In light of recent developments I think it would ber commendable. However, with a diminishing number of American citizens who serve and truly "do not get it," I'd be afraid that it would not fly. Good? Yes. Plausible? probably not. I guess we've had good and bad, regardless. Our founding fathers didn't think it important, probably due to the fact that most were patriots anyway. Then there is a Jimmy Carter. Along with the current admin, possibly the worst president to his time.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 16 at 2016 5:35 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:35:54 -0400

DAMN RIGHT