I wouldn't make military service mandatory to run for president, I would make it mandatory for everyone. Two years, and part of the requirement would be overseas service, and at some point assist in humanitarian aid. We have a responsibility to help others less fortunate than ourselves, it's the Christian thing to do. I served in the National Guard for 7 years, so while I was not a full-timer, I feel I did my time. Two years of full-time service, right after high-school, may make our children more mature when they enter college and perhaps less likely to do so much of the stupid things they do. My guess is that also many of them would be a little more suspiciousof the flag-wavers who've never served but are ready to send other people's children to war. Now that everyone's children could go to war, maybe we'd think twice about doing it.

I believe this idea -- that Presidents should be required to have military experience -- is the first really stupid notion I have heard from this normally sensible man. The basis of democratic government is that the people choose. If the voters think that military experience is important, they will vote accordingly. If not, then they won't. What's wrong with that arrangement?

[Disclaimer: I have worked for the army as a civilian for 28 years, so I have no starry-eyed notions about the poise, purpose or prose of military leaders. They can be just as vile as any civilian you ever met. It all depends upon the individual.]

If you start having tests for office other than the preference of the populace, I have several other proposals that make more sense than Mr K's:

1. Require the candidate to demonstrate committment to protecting the environment during an unpaid summer internship, and

2. Show practical understanding of checks on executive power, demonstrated by actually voting against an executive of his own party while serving as a legislator, and

3. Demonstrate ability to recite the US Constitution, including the first six amendments.

4. Show grasp of economics by living on the minimum wage for 3 months.

Thomas Jefferson didn't have military experience.

Abraham Lincoln didn't have military experience.

Franklin Roosevelt didn't have military experience.

Bill Clinton didn't have military experience.

On the other hand:

Ulysses Grant certainly did have military experience, and he was one of the worst presidents in our history.

George W. Bush also had military experience (though it pains me to admit it, given the evidence of his having gone AWOL).

Military experience is not necessary to be a good president, even in wartime. Neither is it a guarantee of being a good president.

I agree, this idea, even if it was meant to spur discussion and provoke thoughts is downright silly. If the president should serve in the military since he wears the hat of CINC, should he also not attend Harvard Business School since he in a sense "drives" the economy? Should he also attend medical school since he presides over government programs such as Medicaid/Medicare? What about a stint as a Border Patrol agent (although this might be a good eye opening experience for our current president!), a motivational speaker (another good experience for Bush), and a federal bureau of investigation agent? One begins to wonder where the demands for acute experiencea stop.

A leader is someone with a distinct vision and goals who can rally those around him to pursue these ideals in a collective fashion. A "democratically elected" isn't always defined by the above definition, the number of votes sometimes blurs the abilities of candidates while leaving only the demeanor and hollow slogans.

One last thing, to label serving in the military as the "Christian thing to do" because it (sometimes) fulfills a humanitarian mission is a severe oxymoron. Last I checked, training to kill others is hardly a Christian ethic.

Garrison Keillor's suggestion that the U. S. should require that presidential candidates have military experience makes too much sense to dismiss as "satire." He's clearly latched onto a generational difference between the boomers and the current "millennial" generation. The boomers were idealilsts, many of them rebelling against the previous order created in the Great Depression and Second World War, while the current new generation will be creating a new order.

We do need a new sense of order in society. But what is that to be, and for whom? To institute this requirement now for presidential candidates doesn't make sense; it's a judgment call, and a bad one, for how current candidates who mostly grew up in the 60's and 70's "should have behaved" in the chaotic conditions of the time.

I would suggest some sort of universal service at age 18 for everyone -- but not military service. The greatest threat to our society is not external enemies, but the environmental crisis. World oil production will probably peak in the next 5 or 10 years, the economy will be thrown into a state of shock, and after that we are going to need to deal with a new world energy awareness which is going to be thrust upon us regardless of the then-current political trends. We need a new and universal environmental awareness, not encouragement for militarism.

Lincoln did have military experience, though nothing to write home about. He briefly held the rank of captain in the Illinois militia in 1832 during the Black Hawk War, although he did not see action. He wrote after being elected captain by his peers that he had not had "any such success in life which gave him so much satisfaction."

I'd rather have a president who has studied world culture, history, religion, diplomacy, philosophy and ethics.

Currently, worldly knowledge is optional. It seems intelligence is optional as well.

"...moist pink flesh under a showerhead, soaping up, rinsing..." Aw cut it out Garrison. You are creeping me out. Just because you get your panties in a bunch when a jar head enters the room, doesn't mean the rest of us should follow your doe eyed passive acquiescence to a false authority. Military service doesn't guarantee any particular quality in a man. Lt. Cally served. So did Lee Harvey Oswald. Colin Powell orchestrated the failed attempted cover up and white wash of the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam. Is this the "appropriate" and "precise" of which you speak?

I feel for you brother. You yearn for the days past when it was easy not to shoulder the burden of personal involvement in the nation's foreign policies. When we could go about our lives with the comfort of knowing Ike, or someone of his ilk was watching over us. Dad, with an M16. Sadly this doesn't work anymore. I would suggest instead it is our duty to regard the "military" as something else entirely. Always follow the word with "industrial complex" and you will understand the need for more skeptical attitude for the military and one of it's products, it's men.