Military service required?

[Veteran Advisor]

According to www.whoserved.com (http://www.whoserved.com), only 29% of our senators and 22.4% of our Congress members served in the military. Justice Stevens is the only member of the current U.S. Supreme Court with military service (earned a Bronze Star in WWII). Also, the majority of members on Veterans Affairs' Committees in both houses never served.

Should military service be a prerequisite for the top jobs in the federal government (President, Congress, U.S. Supreme Court), particularly those where decisions involving servicemembers and veterans are made?

[skippy13]

Interesting statistic. It might be because the Military has higher standards than politics does.

[carl]

Should military service be a prerequisite for the top jobs in the federal government (President, Congress, U.S. Supreme Court), particularly those where decisions involving servicemembers and veterans are made?
In my opinion prior military service is no guarantee. I think that one or two years of some sort of service to the country should be required after school, high school, or college for every citizen. If a person reaches some maximum age (25? 28?) and is still in school then it should be required perhaps within a year.
This would solve your perceived problem with some people, but would not have kept the current Bush out of the White House.
My opinion,
Carl

[Sue Pendleton]

According to www.whoserved.com (http://www.whoserved.com), only 29% of our senators and 22.4% of our Congress members served in the military. Justice Stevens is the only member of the current U.S. Supreme Court with military service (earned a Bronze Star in WWII). Also, the majority of members on Veterans Affairs' Committees in both houses never served.

Should military service be a prerequisite for the top jobs in the federal government (President, Congress, U.S. Supreme Court), particularly those where decisions involving servicemembers and veterans are made?

Well, it would have saved us from Nixon because Quakers normally are conscious objectors. But then you get into combat jobs, etc., and women have enough problems making General with the belief on boards that combat is a requirement to stars. Presidential office would become further out of reach.

I tend to agree that some kind of national service should be required also but not a draft that lowers morale and pay checks.

What does bother me is knowing our committee members are not vented for everything they are briefed on before being put on armed forces or select intelligence. Senators, congressmen/women, judges and president elects should all be vented, have background checks to get a top secret security clearance, before being sworn in. Might stop all those leaks from Capitol Hill. :nono:

[Veteran Advisor]

But then you get into combat jobs, etc., and women have enough problems making General with the belief on boards that combat is a requirement to stars. Presidential office would become further out of reach.

Please excuse my digression from the initial question posed. Sue, I did consider the point you raise about women, but times are changing---not yet perfect but definitely changing. The following excerpts should give hope to you, my sisters, and my daughter on the expanding role of women in the military (not to mention Ann E. Dunwoody's recent appointment to become the first female four-star general in history):

There are approximately 32,000 women in the U.S. military, comprising about 13 percent of the total U.S. Armed Forces (Defense Almanac 1995). In 1970, only 1.4 percent of the total military was comprised of women, a number that more than tripled to 4.6 percent in 1975, nearly doubled to 8.3 in 1980, rose to 10 in 1985, 11 in 1990, to the current 13 percent (Government Executive March 1994)...

On October 1, 1994, the Defense Department issued a policy that rescinded the so-called "risk rule" that gauges the specialties to which women can be assigned. The policy was backed strongly by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and was the extension of the changes made in April 1993 that opened most aviation specialties, including attack helicopters, to women (Army, March 1994). The policy emphasized that no job will be closed to women just because it is dangerous, but fails to open direct offensive ground combat jobs to women (Army, March 1994). Even today, though, the official policy of the Army and Marine Corps excludes women from combat which precludes 12 percent of skilled positions and 39 percent of the total positions (GAO Report, July 1996)...

More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq. The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war. Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world's most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender.

[Wesley]

According to www.whoserved.com (http://www.whoserved.com), only 29% of our senators and 22.4% of our Congress members served in the military. Justice Stevens is the only member of the current U.S. Supreme Court with military service (earned a Bronze Star in WWII). Also, the majority of members on Veterans Affairs' Committees in both houses never served.

Should military service be a prerequisite for the top jobs in the federal government (President, Congress, U.S. Supreme Court), particularly those where decisions involving servicemembers and veterans are made?

IMO, no.
The civilian control of a non-politicized military is one of our greatest assets. Having a litmus test for military service for our highest offices could damage that firewall between the military and civilian leadership. (especially now that our military is volunteer)

The military-industrial complex's influence on politics is already overwhelming.

anyway, since military experience can run the gambit from being a cook to a general, how would you know if a politician's military service better prepared them for leadership? would you want to eliminate a whole class of potential leaders that were for one reason or another unsuitable for military service, (like disabled)?

[Sue Pendleton]

I know it is getting better but slowly.. Some don't have a clue what would happen to the US military if they booted women out as some right wing evanelical types have suggested in the past. My MOS and duty station was about a 50/50 split because few men who can pass the DLAB, DLAT decide on the service. Women who pass normally leave at one tour to use their college benefits. Civilians think it's due to marriage or pregnancy.

From some of the footage I've seen of Iraq a lot more women should be considered as "engaging". When supply drivers and their ride along have to stop, do a run and cover to drag their badly injured combat troop company members back to safety behind their truck after an IED blows a APC up then that is being "engaged" IMHO. At least they don't have to go to the Supreme Court to be able to wear a combat patch like 13 nurses in Vietnam did.

To go back to topic, would military service be a benefit for democrats who were in an unpopular war or conservatives who served like this past president...at the discretion of where a politician wants to fly that day... :-)

[SCI-Nurse]

Personally, I think that national service (not just military service) should be a requirement for all citizens as it is in some other countries. This could include things like Head Start, the Peace Corps or Vista service, working in an inner city school as a teacher's aide, etc. etc. While military service could meet this requirement, I would not want to see it the only option. It is not for everyone.

(KLD)