Mr. Keillor has an interesting, though unlikely idea here. Maybe we should examine what might be gained or lost be such a requirement. So you know where my perspective comes from, I was an enlisted guy in the Naval reserve until last year. I was "called up" and did three years of "involuntary" service, including four months in Iraq when the war first began.

I learned how to work for others, work with others, and finally lead others. The lessons that I learned are used by me on a daily basis with the people that I now lead. They are invaluable to me.

I did see examples of how not to do things, and felt at times that I was placed in danger by incompetant leaders, usually career officers, who are otherwise unemployable. I learned that a large organization is an unmanagable beast, doomed to mediocity, but with a few bright spots. Often, this is good enough. After all, "You only have to suck less than the other guy". It's difficult, if not impossible to measure how sucessful a military organization is. The only metric is whether or not "we win wars".

I do beleive that those who have served are truly "better citizens" than those who haven't. With the exception of a few screwups, they show up for work. They are generally nice people with a strong value system. They bathe. They don't abuse drugs. They either gain ambition or don't advance in the ranks, usually producing better workers. They learn to value what their service provides. They learn to repect others and work effectively with those who they may not agree with, who may be a different color, religion or class, and be effective. I think that the civilian population could learn and use some of these values and skills. My experience was that there was respect up and down the chain of command, usually earned, with a few exceptions.

I miss many of the people who worked for me, and many that I worked for.

I'd hire most any of them today, because I know that I can count on them. Some of them are in Iraq now, and I worry about their safety. I will celebrate their return and I will support them in any way that I can from here.

I do miss the cohesive, family-like "esprit de corps", the common suffering and common purpose that the organization, thorough its people, provides.

I wouldn't mind having people who understand this in the white house.

It looks like we could use them.

I went to military school grade 7-12, then joined ROTC with summer training, then served three years active service. The one sure thing about such a long period spent in military life is that you learn that you MUST follow orders by a superior and defer to a superior's judgment. It took me about twenty years after my discharge from the Navy to unlearn this terrible attitude and habit of deferring to my boss, even when he/she was wrong and I knew it. Eventually I saw that, in industry, subordinates who challenge their boss are rewarded, not punished. And if that is not the case, it's an indication to move on, you're in a bad situation. Conversely, senior military people become accustomed to handing out orders and expecting them to be obeyed without question. This is the worst kind of preparation for leadership especially at the highest level such as the President of the United States.

On the other hand, look at George W. Bush. He barely served in the military and now thinks he is the King of America. So, there are exceptions!

Virtually any objection can be answered with adjustments that would neutralize it: women in the service; alternate service modes; irrelevance to leadership. But these miss the point, it seems to me.

The point is that one month after such a constitutional amendment was enacted, every ambitious youth would suddenly see military public service in a fresh new light, as something that cannot be omitted on the way to a career that could lead our nation into war. But even more immediately, the parents of these ambitious youths would also come to see warfare in a new light. This would be an even more effective way to increase elite participation in the military than a "universal" draft, from which deferrments are almost always attainable.

It might just be that requiring military service of future leaders will help to civilize the military rather than militarizing the civilians.

Tom Moore

While this piece by Garrison Keillor is certainly insightful, it is most unfortunate that he referenced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to make his point. There are a few things about Newt Gingrich that if Keillor had known, I am sure he would not have tried to make an example of him as someone who needed to understand the importance of military service.

First is that Gingrich is the son of a career soldier and, as such, spent his entire youth living and going to school on military bases throughout the world.

Today he is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for Major Generals. He also teaches officers from all five services as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University.

He is a Member of the Defense Policy Board, serves on the Terrorism Task Force for the Council on Foreign Relations, and is an Editorial Board Member of the Johns Hopkins University Journal for Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. Recently, he was named co-Chair of the UN Task Force, a bi-partisan Congressional effort to reform the United Nations.

In 1999, Gingrich was appointed to the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart/Rudman Commission to examine our national security challenges as far out as 2025. The Commission's report was the most profound rethinking of defense strategy since 1947.

After leading his party to victory by capturing the majority in Congress in 1994, his leadership as Speaker led to an increase in defense spending for the first time in 10 years.

During the Reagan administration, he was a founding member of the military reform caucus in the US Congress.

As widely recognized as Gingrich is as a military expert who currently spends a substantial amount of his personal time working on defense related issues, it is a shame that Keillor would not have done a little due diligence before submitting his column.

Best regards,

Rick Tyler

Communications Director and Spokesperson

Gingrich Communications

Speaker Newt Gingrich