Should Presidential nominees be required to have military experience?

Question

I do believe to be an effective leader of such a diverse country...you need to be well-rounded. Do you believe that being a well-rounded Presidential candidate should include having military experience... especially when war is so imminent nowadays.

Answer 1

No.  (Do you know that Obama's acceptance speech had more viewers and audience members than the Olympics opening ceremony?  That was an epic speech too.  Mcain just had to do something out-there to distract people.  Will you fall for it?)

Answer 2

No, not necessarily. It is definitely a HUGE plus, because it is a whole lot of experience in multiple different areas. There are so many things that get done through the military, it would make your head spin!

Answer 3

no. Abraham lincoln only served for 17 days during the indian wars of the 1840,s and never saw let alone fought any indians. so mister lincoln never really had any military experience prior to becoming the president. then you have others such as washington,jackson,grant,bush sr and several others in which they had military experience. of course some such as grant proved to be very good generals but horrible presidents. grants time in office was marked by graft,corruption and favoritism. so it really depends on the individual not the institute.

Answer 4

no

Answer 5

No.  For people of my generation, after Vietnam and then being too old to join up for the Mid-East conflicts even if you were inclined, military experience isn't there unless you are a career  military and those don't necessarily make good presidents.

However any president has the finest of the military in the Pentagon and will have all the advise they need on strategy.