Should politicians have to serve in the military?

Should military service be a prerequisite for holding a public office?

Yep. They talk about war, but have no intention on joining the battle. Pure chicken hawks.

Why should they?

Yep, and every oncologist must have cancer. What sort of cowardly doctor prescribes treatment that he will not himself undergo?

No, politicians can use their power to influence their rank and other corrupt stuff

@batwatch:

1) that's what I'm asking you guys :P

2) tTue, but oncologists also don't give their patients cancer.

If this is because George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt and JFK was in the military, no. Hitler and Stalin were also part of a military and they weren't exactly good leaders.

@mandarinestro: I'm not asking because of any of them. I'm asking because I'm curious what you guys think.

1. I have not yet heard a legitimate reason for a military service requirement for the presidency, so what else is there to say? You may as well ask if business experience should be a prerequisite.

2. Presidents do not necessarily give us war either. Even if they did, it would completely destroy the President's ability to lead a nation if he were on the battlefield.

@batwatch:

1) That's cool. I was just curious about your opinions. I honestly haven't really formed my own yet

2) Well, I'm not asking if politicians should take the battle field while in office, I'm asking if serving should be a prerequisite to running.

1. Gotcha.

2. That's true. Sorry, I got mixed up from OP.

I do think military service could be beneficial to a President, but so could a host of other skills like accounting, medical experience or a great knowledge of history, but these are not crucial because a President can surround himself with experts in all these fields. What is crucial is high character and good principles and judgment. That's why we should look at a President's positions and conduct.

Nah, I don't think so

I'd like it personally (being ex-military) I can see the benefits for military personnel;

Politicians may gain a better understanding of what's involved in sending the military anywhere, and be either less likely to, or at least more refined in their choice of deployment.

It may give them better teamwork/ leadership skills as well.

That being said, in reality I know it wouldn't work. I've seen people in the military go out of their way to help others and be inspirations to those around them. I've also seen people I wouldn't pee on if they were on fire (to put it bluntly). The point being that the military is just a job, it doesn't really change who you are deep down.

What I'd really like is for politicians to have some form of real world experienceprior to getting office. The worst kind of politician in my eyes is the career one.

By that I mean the one who went into politics straight out of university, and hasn't had any form of employment. They get office and are handed everything- allowances to travel, allowances to stay at home, accommodations and meals paid for when they sit in office. They get a sense of entitlement, and lose any touch for what the common man is doing.

My countries politicians get a lifetime pension once they've served some piddling amount like 4 years. So for the rest of their life they get paid the same salary as when they were working, without tax, without having to wait until retirement age, without even taking into consideration any other wage they may be getting on top of that!

These people then have the gall to tax everyone else's pensions "for the good of the country". One went on the record as saying she could survive on the aged pension without a problem. So a change for at least $1000 a week down to $150 (approximately), when asked to put her money where her mouth was, she mumbled something about other commitments and forgot her boast.

If they had run a business, worked as a labourer, been a paramedic, prior to gaining office I'd like to think it would give them some much needed perspective for running the country.

Apologies for the rant, this is just something that grinds my gears...

No, but politicans with military experience tend to be great leaders like Teddy

I don't believe that anyone who's never seen combat should have any right to send others into it. I promise you if those people starting wars from their comfy offices actually had to fight them, they'd be way more reluctant to start them.

I honestly don't care, that's what Generals and Secretaries are for.

What? Definitely not.

It'd be kind of irrelevant to the job they were doing.

Not a rant, you've brought up very important points. I agree with you.

Eh, I'm rather mixed.

Only if it would make them think twice before pulling everyone else into yet another conflict.

Then true leaders would serve the country.

The requirements for going into the military and holding public office are different.

That would be asinine to bar people from office because they couldn't go into the military due to some congenital disease.

I don't believe it should be a "have" too stipulation. I do feel it would be nice to have more active members in official positions that have served the Country in some form or another. Military, Police, Fire, Ext. I do feel that politicians should have too preform community service at least a few times a year.

Nope.

I agree that it'd be best for politicians to have real world experience, but requiring military service seems like an impractical solution. Politicians are responsible for more than just the military

Having an entire political system in which EVERY single politician has military experience is a very easy way to obtain a militant political system.

No, because:

• It's irrelevant 99,99% of their time in office... and only really relevant if they are the president.
• Said president has a staff consisting of a host of experienced senior military personel he can ask for advice.
• It is falling to these senior advisors to carry out whatever order the president is going to give.
• Chiefly, the president is in office not to wage or start unnessesary wars, he is there to make sure most of the country is moving in the same direction.

I mean, when the US went after bin Laden, Bush Junior did not hand the armed forces a plan regarding how to find him, what to do with him or how to do him in. He most likely said: "Get him." To them, then they went away, checked intel, formulated a plan in a hurry and came back and said: "Sir, he's hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. We suggest we go in an root both of them out." Then it's up to him to greenlight the action.

And lets not forget that Bush Junior was one of those privilidged sorts that mostly avoided his military service.

No.

@cave_duck:

Good post, Cave Duck.

@cgoodness:

The best thing Teddy did was give a name to a stuffed bear.

Also, he wasn't really military. He got a political position as a Naval assistant with no prior military experience, and he wanted to kill some people to prove how tough he was, so he lobbied to get in on the invasion of Cuba, and he ran with the rough riders performing, admittedly, vey well. He was very smart, but he was a imperialist guy who greatly expanded the power of the government over people.

@thetruebarryallen:

That's a really good point.

I would have sent them in the front lines!

Or at least as the leading commanders so that bastards would actually could be blamed with their responsibilty and executed for war crimes.

Damn them.

Nor a bad ones. Hitler was definitely smart and the tactic of fast war ( I dont know the english terms), when you wont declare war and just keep pushing your enemy is a smart though dangerous move. He managed to conquer Belgic, France, Poland, Czech, part of Russia and had allies like Slovakia, Austria and Italy. And all of that happened within the months.

One of the main points of the system is that anyone can run.

Besides, think of FDR. He couldn't have been in the military with his condition, yet some argue that he made a great president.

@sog7dc: @thetruebarryallen: @batwatch: The author Robert Heinlein used this idea as the fundamental of the society he described in Starship Trooper.

There is a large literature about this concept.

@bullpr:

Interesting.

@penderor:

Blitzkrieg is the word that describes Hitler's fast moving conquest across the world.

That's a good point, I'd just add that when they're doing community service they have to be in a "hands-on role" not just squatting in an office checking their email as "administrative management" and that there's no media coverage.

Every time a politician does any sort of community service type of stuff they make sure that there's cameras there to show how "selfless they are." Which kind of defeats the purpose if they're just doing it for PR points.

You, sir, are the king of good posts.

@cave_duck: I agree... It's a start in the right direction at any rate.

@naamah_obyzouth:

One more point on my to-do list for when I take over the world...

So much stuff to do, its almost not worth the hassle.

Shouldn't be required in a free society but for me military service would definitely place their resume at the top of the pile.

I'd even take a longer look at a liberal with military experience over a conservative without.

Gracias Senor.

Most Politicians with military experience are actually pro-war advocates.

So...

This.

If you live in a country with Democracy, then the answer is no. I'm against the idea for any form of government.

You can't just have a single type of person with one kind of resume run this country, there's no balance.

Right now we need more political leaders that understand business and science. We need to focus on ways for us to efficiently live in our own country before we go and tell other countries how to run themselves.