Should military service be a pre-requisite for the Secretary of Defense?

[Jacobtm]

Seeing the disastrous strategies Donald Rumsfeld dreamed up, and then seeing how much better Gen. Petreus' strategies have worked, does it make sense that the Secretary of Defense should be required to have served in the military?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.

Interestingly enough I found this on Wikipedia  -  "By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years (10 USC Sec. 113 - Note that Congress had passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945). "

[MODU]

No.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I feel it should, but technically Rumsfeld did serve in the military: he was in the navy for a few years back in the 50s. I don't however believe that the secreatary of defense should be a career military officer.

[2952-0-0]

No. This isn't the Tatamdaw or something.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Nope

[Хahar 🤔]

No. I would appoint an SoD with at least five years of military service, though.

[dead0man]

errrr, Rummy DID serve.  He was active duty Navy for 3 years and then the Naval Reserve for 18 years.  Now you might argue that the Navy is pretty "Nancy", and I might agree with you.  Never the less, it's technically part of the DoD.

I think we should just avoid hiring morons for the job, it's got nothing to do with whether they served or not.  Rummy was a MUCH worse Sec. of Def than Bush has been at President.

[Jacobtm]

When every military commander said we needed far more troops than we initially put into Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld just said "nope", I feel like it wouldn't have turned out that way if he knew something about military tactics, from the perspective of a commanding officer. To have someone who's actually led troops would be a great advantage, so that they wouldn't force generals into impossible situations that lead to unnecessary troop deaths, as Rumsfeld did.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Tempted to argue for the reverse; no-one with military service can have the position.

[Silent Hunter]

Arguable both ways, but I'd say no. It's a civilian-controlled military and someone with military experience may be too biased towards them.

[MODU]

Now you might argue that the Navy is pretty "Nancy", and I might agree with you.  Never the less, it's technically part of the DoD.

Careful there, junior. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. Tempted to argue for the reverse; no-one with military service can have the position.

[??????????]

Can we please change it back to the correct name..."Department of War"?

[MODU]

Can we please change it back to the correct name..."Department of War"?

No, because then we'll have to change the name of the State Department to the "Department of Peace," and that sounds stupid.

[J. J.]

Now you might argue that the Navy is pretty "Nancy", and I might agree with you.  Never the less, it's technically part of the DoD.

Careful there, junior. 

Shot across the bow?

[phk]

No.