Thanks, Greg. I can agree with you that having been in the military should by no means be a requirement for being president. And I can also agree that jingoism is something we should be highly  sceptical of and we should be looking for presidents that are inclined to diplomatic solutions and who, if they do not have a lot of insight and knowledge on a conflict issue, are both willing to and capable of learning.

In terms of war, a president should be capable of grasping the consequences of warfare, both in political terms and in terms of losses on both sides. A commander in chief should feel the weight of every soldier who dies on his watch on his shoulders.

My perspective is that a good former military leader (as opposed to a regular soldier or pilot or such positions with less combat leadership responsibilities) will already have felt that weight and will be aware of that burden and that obligation. Just living on an army base, where the death of soldiers impact the entire community, is enough to make officers keenly aware of the pain of other people's loss.  

A lot of politicians who have never served have experienced and borne that burden in exemplary fashion (FDR being one of them) , so I'm not saying that this is a quality that is unique to military men.

What I am saying is that I think Bush and several others in the current administration (who either have not served (chickenhawks) or have not had significant military leadership positions if they did serve) do not seem to feel that burden.

I think intelligence, empathy and foresight are among the chief qualifications for any public office. I also think that at this point the US should have a commander in chief willing to sit down at a table and see if conflicts can be settled amicably before committing troops to it.  "Walk softly and carry a big stick" I think Teddy Roosevelt called it.  

Dang- I managed to offend a few former military guys here.

You and me both... which is disturbing.  Why are they so sensitive?  And why only on-line?  The majority of my family is (Democrat) Military, and they don't get their panties in a knot over comments.  Nor do any of my Military friends, like the one who is staying at my place this weekend. (Who is, by the way, an Obama supporter).

Internet brings out the worst in people. 

"Why are they so sensitive?"

Mike, a blanket, unnuanced statement that military training renders you unsuitable for the office of the president is offensive and untrue. Greg has nuanced his statement, and I'm sure we all agree that jingoism (a preference for war over diplomacy) is bad. But let's not pretend that it's a case of us being overly sensitive.

A statement that people who have not served in the military are unfit for the office of the presidency would be equally offensive and untrue. If we had made such an assertion, wouldn't you have called us on it?

And if you asked your military friends if they thought military training rendered them unsuitable for political office, do you really think they wouldn't find the idea offensive?  Ask them. Go on.

Why is it that you would consider disagreeing with such assertions being "sensitive", as if it's some hysteric fit out of the blue?

Many people seem to have odd qualifications in mind when they decide what they would like to see in their leaders. For example, I pointed out to a friend of mine that the majority of people in Canada have never attended a post secondary school but that most (nearly all, but there are some exceptions) politicians have attended and graduated from college or university. No working class, no tradesmen, no blue collar need apply as there is an unspoken but clearly present predjudice against those people. People from all walks of life need representation from politicians who at least have some idea of how they live and how they think and yet it seems like the entry to the club is that piece of paper.

This isn't meant to insinuate that there is no value to a degree, but often people go further and make statements about the lack of intelligence of those without a degree and how the lack of same renders them unfit to lead.

Which seems to be a part of the reason so very many lawyers are elected to public office. They have the education, they can speak well, and they are already involved with the law, which would seem to make them ideal candidates, except that they seem to think that if a problem arises they can solve it by drafting a new law (which is often difficult to enforce) which, I believe, results in an over regulated and less free country.

Steve,

What you say has merit.  Coming from "corporate America" I've seen people who have earned BS and MBA degrees and automatically think they've moved up in both the social scale, as well as, demanded economic scale (in other words, I now have my degree so PAY me!).  I've literally seen people with HS degree's whip the crap (sales wise) out of MBA's, so while I think degrees are important (because it opens up a world of information and experience that it would be hard to otherwise obtain) I also believe there is an unjust predjuduce against non-degree'd blue collar workers, and that all should be represented.

...except the guy I who sat next to me at the ball game last night (why do I always get the weird ones who sit next to me?).  Under the wafting smell of breath that smelled like a case of Bud, this guy asked me who I was voting for and I passionately said "Obama!!"  He then informed me that our country is screwed up because of the Democrats and that Obama is like the rest of them.  So I then said to him "You must be voting for McCain, right?" and he said "No, I'm not voting for any of the bastards".  I so hate people who don't take either side but loudly wait in the fringe until ANYONE is elected so they bitch even louder how things are bad and wrong. 

These people should be shipped to Cuba!  LOL