108th Congress Lacks Military Veterans
by Donald N. Zillman, Edward Godfrey Professor of Law
at the University of Maine School of Law
In this era of challenged national security and looming international
conflict, there is something significantly missing from the
newly elected 108th Congress of the United States: military
veterans. Fewer than 30 percent of legislators in the new
Congress have served in the military, down from 50 percent
in the 102nd Congress that oversaw Desert Storm.
For a Congress that faces the prospect of being one of our
rare wartime Congresses, the implications of congressional
remoteness from personal military service are sobering both
at home and overseas. Our constitutional commitment to civilian
control over the military requires a leadership that respects
and understands the professional capabilities of the military.
One useful indicator of this is a legislator's personal service
in the armed forces. By that standard, the 108th Congress
is our least militarily connected Congress in decades.
Several layers of social and political change have contributed
to this downward trend in veteran legislators. The most obvious
factor is America's decreased involvement in military conflicts
requiring conscripted military service. Over half of the 150
veterans that comprise the 108th Congress served some of their
service during the Viet Nam era. The enormous cadre of male
veterans that fought during World War II is aging out of legislative
service: only 11 remain in Congress. Quite possibly, by 2010,
Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation will no longer be represented
in Congress.
Rarer still are veterans of America's volunteer military.
While there is an ample supply of legislators in their 30s,
40s and early 50s, only 10 legislators with military experience
started their service after 1973. The legislator of 2003,
thirty years removed from the conscripted military, is unlikely
to have served.
The composition of the new Congress also lends support to
the allegations that the Republicans have become the "party
of the military." Nineteen Republicans and 16 Democrats are
senators with military experience. Sixty-eight Republicans
and 46 Democrats are veteran House members. Of the new veteran
legislators of any age, six are Republicans, three are Democrats.
All 10 of the volunteer-era veteran legislators are Republicans.
The growing presence of women in the U.S. Congress also
changes the mix. While hundreds of women have graduated from
service academies and ROTC programs, and thousands have served
the military in enlisted capacities, only one female veteran
is in the new Congress -- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N. Mex.),
a former Air Force officer.
The last, and most troublingly unquantifiable, factor is
that prior military service is no longer a necessary part
of the resume for an aspirant to federal elective office.
While a period of honorable military service is still a positive
factor for most prospective legislators, some key groups and
individual political power brokers may be suspicious of someone
who looks "too military." Conversely, the realities of military
service -- serving far away from home, committing to abstain
from political activity, and receiving only modest pay --
are not conducive to positioning oneself for a try for federal
elective office.
All evidence suggests that the loss of a veteran presence
in Congress will continue in the decade to come. It is the
erosion of a centuries-old tradition that has been the glue
in our Constitutional concept of a strong military operating
within the checks and balances of informed civilian control.
Why is active military experience useful to an individual
legislator and to the collective body of Congress? Why should
we be concerned as that experience walks off the floors of
the House and Senate? It is because the military is a complex,
distinctive culture; many of its primary missions do not have
precise civilian counterparts. The legislator who has commanded
a small unit in battle, flown combat missions, organized medical
care for mass casualties, or shipped supplies to a war zone
possesses valuable practical insights for a Congress that
will guide the War on Terrorism and possible war with Iraq.
Military veteran legislators can both help educate their non-veteran
colleagues and serve as a reality check for organizations
and individuals seeking to persuade Congress on issues of
military importance.
The United States Supreme Court in 1976 in Greer v. Spock
spoke of the "American constitutional tradition of a politically
neutral military establishment under civilian control. It
is a policy that has been reflected in numerous laws and military
regulations throughout our history." That tradition has eroded
over the last quarter century. We can only hope that both
political parties and the American voters will take a hard
look at its implications for our concept of a strong military
operating under a system of informed civilian control.
Donald N. Zillman is Edward Godfrey Professor of Law at
the University of Maine Law School in Portland. He is a veteran
of the U.S. Army, a former visiting professor of law at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a former member of
the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps.
>more news releases
|
