Congress Short on Military Experience
s Congress debates the war in Iraq, the Senate and House are short on military experience.Only 29 of 100 senators and 23 percent of House members today have worn a uniform -- the lowest percentages since World War II, a review by Media General News Service found. Both of Virginia's senators are veterans, as are four of its 11 representatives.
Several who follow Congress say the lack of military experience is unlikely to sway the debate over President Bush's new war strategy. But it does affect oversight and legislation on other military matters that fail to make the front page but have huge impacts on readiness and the armed forces' future.
Only 130 of the 535 senators and representatives in the recently seated 110th Congress served on active duty or in the reserves of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard.
It's the lowest number since World War II, when 196 veterans served on the Hill in 1945.
The ranks of veterans in the House peaked at 317 in 1973. The Senate had 78 in 1977.
Since then, the roll call of veterans has become much shorter. Public discontent over the Vietnam War, plus elimination of the draft, meant fewer people entered the armed forces.
Since 9/11, Congress has been dealing with the gamut of military issues -- from funding equipment and more troops to boosting pay and benefits.
Organizations representing veterans and military personnel said they spend more time lobbying nonveterans -- both politicians and staff members -- than those who served. "The impact to us is we have to educate them on veterans' issues," said David Greineder, deputy national legislative director for AMVETS.
The lack of veterans in Congress has resulted in an insensitivity to the burdens placed on troops and their families by the war and frequent deployments, said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for Military Officers Association of America.
"One percent of the population is bearing 100 percent of the burden of the war," he said.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may fuel a resurgence of the veteran ranks in politics.
"With the war dominating politics, I think there will be more veterans running as candidates" in 2008, said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project.
COMMENT BELOW
It disturbs me that New Jersey elected leaders have no military experience on military active duty or reserves including Governor Jon Corzine, Senator Menendez, or my district Representative Ferguson, except for Senator Lautenberg. It disturbs me that the current President Bush was a legacy reservist while his father was in high office.... do you really think he received the same treatment as you or I would have without Daddy in the White House?
The vast majority of the presidential canidates also do not have military experience and that also disturbs me. The current President Bush stated that the Iraq problem will continue when he leaves office in about 2 years, for the next president. I think it should be mandatory for those of that vote that we need a person who has had military training and at least has reserve experience if not active duty experience. The stakes are too high.
I attended the first two years of Air Force ROTC which was mandatory for full time students at my university. I thoroughly remember learning about how important the running of the peace was after defeating a country in war. It made an impression on me at the time because It never came to me before that we had to maintain the peace, feed the people, maintain the infrastructures such as utilities, schools, roads and bridges, and economy like we did especially during the occupations of Germany and Japan, so successfully. Bush was a student around this time also and I wonder how come he did not learn the lesson that day? It would not surprise me that there are courses at the military academies or for officer training on the issues on running the peace after defeating an enemy.
The population in America exceeds 300 million people today, more than twice the number of people that we had during World War II and the President and Congress complain that we do not have enough troops (even with activating tens of thousands of reservists) to do the jobs in Iraq and Afganistan properly. And the commanders are complaining that our equipment, transportation, and heavy weapons are being worn out due to heavy use and not adequately being replaced currently.
Personnally, I think the military headcount should be increased by more than 1 million for active duty and another 1 million for the reserve units. I think the military colleges such as West Point, Annapolis, and the Air force Academy should increase the number of their graduates by more than 50% within 5 years. American forces in harms way should have all of the resources they need to protect themselves and accomplish their missions. All active duty and reserve units should have all of the resources they need in excellent condition within 5 years also.
America should examine the supply chains of all of the equipment needed by our American military forces and make sure there is adequate supplies of raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, assembly facilities, and transportation in America so that they have what they need when they need it. With Bush free trade policies, critical components have been in short supply in America some by foreign ownership of American mines, smelters, and factories, and also some components are currently being built by foreign countries that have also been in short supply. Swiss parts for American smart bombs have previously been in short supply causing a shortage of smart bombs due to political concerns of the Swiss government. You cannot have free trade when America requires a critical military supply chain. President Bush is wrong.
America needs a President and Vice President, Senators, and Representatives with active duty or at least military reserve experience in today's uncertain world.
posted by God Bless America - Bob @ 12:06 PM
0 comments
