Military Service for Presidential Candidates?

[Bravus]

This is from Bill Maher, but try to ignore the source and think about the idea:

Quote:

One other thing: in the overtime, I heard Ron Paul make the point to John King that his foreign policy was similar to Eisenhower's, how Ike avoided getting militarily involved in Vietnam or the Suez Canal and got out of Korea. Because he was a military man. Ron Paul served, also -- the other three not so much. I know it will never become law, because it would require a constitutional amendment, but I don't think it would be such a bad thing if you had to have served in the military if you wanted to be president. Kennedy also avoided war where many would not have. After him, though, we got into the era of non-servers and draft-dodgers, and used the military like a toy. Ex-soldiers understand it's not. And the president is Commander-in-Chief -- shouldn't you have served some time in an organization you're the head of?

Makes sense to me.

[Dottie]

Is prior military service required for candidates in Australia?

[Bravus]

No - and perhaps it should be. I think we've been less prone to *leading* military adventurism in the recent past, but we've certainly *followed* the US into pretty much everything since Vietnam. A service record might help those decisions to be made with better knowledge of the real costs...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Kennedy also avoided war where many would not have.

Kennedy got us into Vietnam. So I don't know if he is such a good example.

Woodrow Wilson is the President most guilty of war scandals and he never served.

Lyndon B. Johnson got us heavily involved in Vietnam and he served in the Navy during WW2.

Reagan used the military to invade Granada and bomb Libya and he served and he had been a captain in the Army.

George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and he had been a Navy pilot during WW2.

George W. Bush, of course, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and served in the National Guard during Vietnam.

Obama, of course, escalated the war in Afghanistan, violated the War Powers Act in his aggression against Libya and invaded a nuclear-armed nation in order to kill Osama bin Laden. And he never served in the military.

So it seems to be mixed and certainly not clear cut.

I think the intentions of the US founders was that the military would be under a civilian rule and thus there was no requirement for the Commandeer in Chief to have a past military experience.

[Bravus]

Dubya served at home, not in Vietnam - let's have that clear, though I realise you didn't intend to mislead. And was AWOL for a lot of the time as well. I don't think he's a particularly good example...

[Dr. Shane]

George W. Bush did serve state-side during Vietnam. That is true. He volunteered to go to Vietnam but was not accepted because he didn't have enough flight hours. As far as AWOL is concerned, remember that in the US a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. AWOL is a charge, like like any other criminal charge. Bush was never even charged with being AWOL, much less found guilty.

The Guard choice in context.

Bush volunteered for Vietnam: CBS report

[Bravus]

Meh, I'll withdraw all comments on Dubya, truth aside, because it's leading us off topic.

Thanks for the summary of the history of presidents, their service and their wars, Shane, it was a real education.

The original proposal is probably too simplistic, and particularly the claim about the link between military service and military use, but I do think that there's something to be said for the notion that someone who may have to ask others to lay down their lives for their country should have demonstrated his own willingness to do the same.

[phkrause]

Lets not forget that Kennedy spent 4 years in the Navy, where he received medals for heroism, etc. So he knew what war was all about.