Militarism breeds militarism. The U.S. president should to be a leader in the worldwide move away from a war paradigm.

Perhaps we can require instead that anyone running for president has a degree in peace studies?

With regard to the comment that Robert Heinlein had a strong feeling that social service enabling a person to hold full citizenship is a good thing Starship troopers is considered the last of his immature novels (although it definitely is a science fiction classic). Heinlein himself had a libertarian political viewpoint and it is interesting to note that the society of Starship Troopers often raises questions regarding its similarities with Nazism (a federal system set up by ex military, the arguably restrictive society). It is my personal opinion that the United States has to distance itself from what Eisenhower termed the 'military industrial complex' (and yes I am aware he was a military man although the point still stands).

It would be way more democratic if everyone put a year or two into some kind of national service that didn't necessarily have to be violent or even abroad. Not only would it make each of us a more direct part of maintaining our country, but it would also safeguard against inane wars. We would see that keeping PEACE is a valuable service, too. If everyone did two years of service out of high school--men and women--could we so easily turn a blind eye to what goes on overseas? I don't think so. We wouldn't be able to sit back and watch sitcoms and reassure ourselves that the people fighting "volunteered for it" and "were willing to die" or anything other seductive thought that a professional army might nurture. We would be much choosier about what wars we let the administration get away with. We would all feel both more pride and more shame our country, and it would promote an awareness of international interactions and current events that many of us sorely lack. We might even kick the habit of excessive feelings of entitlement prevalent among our youth. Just drop by any residential college to see what I'm talking about. That said, since we don't have such a democratic mechanism in place, there's no way the president should be required to have served. Maybe certain attributes common to veterans would be beneficial in politics, but since we elect a representative of the people, the president should reflect that--and most of us have no experience in government service. And the way things are now, I would never dream of joining up, although I have much respect and gratitude for those who do. But to give everyone a part in the upkeep of our nation? To give everyone an incentive to value peaceful international relations and engage with each other in the spirit of progress for our country? I think having compulsory universal service of some kind is the most democratic idea I've heard in a long, long time.

I was shocked to read this article under Keillor's byline. It seems so out of character that it is really hard to believe that he wrote it. If there is any sarcasm in it, it is far too subtle for me.

So, taking him at face value, there may be indeed be admirable qualities to be found in many West Point graduates and other service veterans. Whether or not these qualities result from basic training is arguable. I would assert that you need to do the whole drill-- service under fire, losing friends, ordering kids you hardly know to take a hill because the plan requires it, to really build that character. Some, like John McCain or John Kennedy, seem to come through those tests with real character and wisdom. Others, like Richard Nixon, don't seem to have done that well.

On the other hand, two of our nation's greatest wartime leaders, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln had no military experience. (To qualify Abraham Lincoln as having military experience on the basis of his three weeks in the militia seems questionable. FDR had no military experience. See this . Furthermore, as the article points out, one of our most successful military leaders, Grant, was very unsuccessful as a President.

Perhaps Garrison Keillor is having problems focusing and is feeling like he would be doing better mentally had he not missed out on the character-building part of having a sergeant yell at him in 95 degree heat. I have at times wondered the same thing about myself. Garrison is certainly well off enough financially to hire someone to put him through the drills and being 60 is no time to slack off on physical training. I'm only 48, but I broke my leg last year and I'm out of shape. If he'd be up for it, I'll join him in the training. I'm ready to become a lean mean fighting machine (but I don't think it will make me a good military leader.)

John Bescherer

Mattapoisett, MA