Is it important for politicians to have military/combat experience?

I thought after Bill Clinton got elected it didn't matter any more but it still seems to. In the modern era is it important for the Commander in Chief to know about military matters?

Personally I don't think so, neither FDR nor Wilson ever served in the military and did just fine as wartime leaders.

 

I am not bothered by Trump because he never served...nor was I bothered that former president Bill Clinton did not.

I do think, however, that seeing what war is like...might have a good influence on decisions made that might lead to war.

It is not a requirement...but, in my opinion, it is desirable.

DISCLAIMER: I served...but not in battle. I was in SAC during the 1950's...when SAC was the baddest ass on the planet. It is my opinion that everyone physically able to serve...ought to be encouraged to spend some time in the military. Lots of real growing-up happens there.

 

I don't think a President needs to see combat or be a soldier. It has no impact on my vote.

 

Not just having served, but having served in active combat. Knowing war from the ground will, in general, give that person much more wisdom when it comes to deciding on matters that involve sending our men and women into combat. The Iraq war showed us some of the dangers of men with little combat experience between them deciding on military ventures. Of the main administration officials making decisions, AFAIK only Colin Powell had active duty experience. Rumsfeld served but saw no combat.

 

I chose neither here nor there, what I was hoping for was the selection stating: YES, maybe they will not return home and we will be without the curse of them being in government, but I digress. I am joking, or am I?

 

Well it seems that overall Americans prefer a politician who served but it's not essential. It's interesting that Trump, Biden and Sanders all were excused the draft due to medical exemptions (Pence was born in 59), Mayor Pete is the only candidate with military service.

 

Having military experience should be important but actual combat experience is not. Many people who served in combat come out with distorted views because of the experience.

I also believe that anyone between 18 and 35 years of age should serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years.

 

Yes, we had National Service here up until 1960 but that was in the withdrawal from the empire/cold war phase, I don't actually believe in it as a social measure, people dumping their problem children on the military.

 

Here it was mandatory up until the early '70s and it was the reason I joined in 1970 and served my 4 years which helped me grow up and didn't harm me in the least. I really can't see how people can use the system to dump their problem children on the military.

 

I am revising opinion.

I think it would be good for a president to have military service. I think it is vital that several members of the president's cabinet be combat vets. Not REMFs people who actually saw combat.
Chairman of the joint chiefs absolutely has to be a combat vet.

Why? I think a combat vet would weigh deeply the risks of sending troops to combat but would have the guts to do it if itvwas needed and would look out for the troops in developing war plans.

If i were president I'd want Dan Hampton USAF Col ret. as my primary military advisor.

 

I think knowledge in modern history is more beneficial in politics

 

The military history of the presidents is interesting, Trump famously got a medical exemption from Vietnam (as did Bernie and Joe Biden), Obama never served a day in uniform, GW was a fighter pilot with the Air National Guard but was never deployed to Vietnam, Bill Clinton studied abroad during the period, GH a genuine WW2 hero, decorated for valour and shot down over the Pacific, Reagan served in the Army in WW2 but stayed in the US making war movies, Jimmy Carter joined the navy in WW2 but the war ended before he saw action, Gerald Ford by contrast saw a lot of fighting aboard an aircraft carrier, Nixon was a navy supply officer but never saw action beyond the occasional air raid, LBJ was also in the Navy but only saw combat once as an observer on a bombing raid. JFK was famously decorated for rescuing his patrol boat crew after it was rammed by a Jap destroyer (although it could be argued it was his fault they got wrecked in the first place), Ike a famous general but never saw combat until he arrived in North Africa and Harry Truman an artillery officer in WW1. So it's pretty much a mixed bag and always has been.

 

no, there is a progression there that you have failed to consider. as we have solidified our political elite, their members have been less exposed to the possibility of combat. we are no longer enamored with our "war heroes". perhaps this will change if it suits the inclinations of one party or the other.

 

I don't know, what was edifying about the 2008 election was that 3 out of 4 candidates had children serving in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

Two of the worst presidents in history are your examples? Wow...

 

And probably always should be. It's nice to have a president with military experience every once in a while, but it's not an absolute for every president.

 

Wilson (racist though he was) helped win WW1 and set up the League of Nations. FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression and helped win WW2

 

What about Tulsi Gabbard? She served as a Medic in a combat zone in Iraq?

 

Didn't know that but she's pretty far down the list.

 

Wilson got us into WWI after promising and campaigning to stay out of it. His stupidity after the war set the stage for WWII, it was literally his fault the world became a mess. FDR played king, disregarded the Constitution and then threaten to pack the courts when challenged. FDR played nice with Stalin, that was a mistake, and we had a 40 year Cold War as a result. FDR was not a good president, better than Wilson and Obama, but still bottom of the barrel...

 

But US intervention was a godsend! Wilson was crippled by a stroke after the war so it's hard to blame him. FDR played nice with Stalin but so did Churchill, it was the devil you know. How he would have coped with the Cold War we'll never know.

 

I chose "Not important at all". George Bush Jr is a prime example of having seen service and fup it up big style with Iraq.

What's worse, that idiot and Blair still roam the planet, so both America's and the British judicial systems are hopeless.

 

Neither committed any crime.

 

Along with OJ Simpson.

 

I think there is an advantage in having lived and absorbed the unique subculture and physical discipline that the military represents, to know what it is like to live in a barrack, and get your orders from a commanding officer , who literally controls when you can crap, where and if you sleep, and offer you a shovel and a pile of dirt, just because he can. It's good that they understand how morality and ethics intersect with the practicalities of being a member of a unit where cohesion is seen central to success.

It sure is not vital, and plenty of Presidents can be effective commanders-in chief without that personal experience IF they listen to those who know that culture better than they do. When the pentagon brass talk, they had better put on their listening ears.