How many veterans are in Congress? How are veterans distributed by political party?

This blog has discussed the military civilian divide a number of times. I've cited statistics showing that fewer Americans now are veterans than during most or all of the 20th century, and that Congressional representation follows the same pattern: about 25 percent of representatives are veterans, but the percentage was 75 percent just a few decades ago. The end of the draft, and the lack of major ground combat wars in recent years are a substantial part of this.

But the numbers matter more than simply for historical trend-tracking. A good democracy should not be too isolated from its military, for a number of reasons. When the leadership cannot understand the military, leaders might be more prone to misuse the military. For example, leaders might send soldiers off to war without the leaders having adequate understanding of the consequences. Military advisers and joint chiefs are insufficient. The public, the voters, should also understand the military, for similar reasons. Of course the military should not control the state, and we have civilian oversight for good reason. But note that in some countries where the military becomes aliented from the government, we sometimes see military coups. This is another reason to avoid a military civilian divide.

So the percentage of veterans in Congress has been noted (25), but how does that break down? Fortunately, a website called Vietvet.org has listed the veterans in the 111th congress. (The site also has a great tribute to Lewis B. Puller Jr., who became one of the many post-war casualties of the war in 1994 when he took his own life.) The site breaks Congressional members down by House and Senate, and by whether the member is a combat veteran. I sorted it further by political party, and this is what we have:

The House of Representatives has 94 veterans, which is about 22 percent of its members.* There are 15 combat vets, about 3 percent of all representatives.

The Senate has 26 veterans, 26 percent of the Senate. There are 7 combat vets.

Both houses, by political party:

25 percent of Congressional Republicans are veterans (61 out of 242).
20 percent of Congressional Democrats are veterans (59 out of 290).

3 percent of Congressional Republicans are combat veterans (7 out of 242).
5 percent of Congressional Democrats are combat veterans (15 out of 290).

So it's interesting that a greater percentage of Republicans are veterans (in general), but a greater percentage of Democrats are combat veterans.

Regarding the military civilian divide, I can't say much with these numbers, as I am not sure what percentage of the general public are veterans. It must depend considerably upon age.

Regarding political party membership of Congressional veterans, I am heartened to see that veteran-status is not a partisan phenomenon. It would be disconcerting for our republic if veterans were primarily in one party. (Political views of the active duty military are much debated, though I found that most Marines I served with were non-political. This interests me, but is beyond the scope of this post.) Also, the numbers here challenge the stereotype held by some that the GOP is the veterans' party.

*Total for the House is 434, total for the Senate is 99. Numbers come from Capitol.net. Each house had one vacancy at the time. If you divide by 435 or 100, however, the percentages do not change.

Old Army Buddies?

The Washington Post has a piece by some (non-veteran) guy who looks back with nostalgia about the days when everyone was drafted, his dad included. The "Old Army Buddy" bonds are tight, the author reports.

It's an interesting Memorial Day piece, and rightfully points out statistics such as Congress having 25% veterans now, while it was 75% veterans just a few decades ago. The end of the draft, among other factors, has increased the military-civilian divide, as I have written about on this blog several times.

But the author seems to be the Exhibit A piece of evidence of the military-civilian divide. Why didn't he serve? What does he know? Is the purpose of the article just to throw a bone to peacetime vets? I appreciate that he is essentially saying that peacetime vets (like myself) have unique bonds between them, as do wartime vets. There were peacetime vets in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, too, you know. Why the focus on the 50s and 60s? The article is worth a read, but the author just seems to be missing a few things.

I guess what's so odd is that he has great nostalgia for the days when "everyone served," yet he didn't feel inclined to serve when he came of age.

Anyway, semper fi and happy Memorial Day.

On right-wing groups recruiting veterans

So the DHS said that veterans are ripe for recruitment by right-wing groups, including terrorists. This is a fact. Unfortunately, some veterans are offended, and even more talking heads are upset. The latter is ridiculous.

(The VFW was fine with the report, but the American Legion was offended.)

McCain demanded an apology, which confirms previous evidence that he has become quite partisan. Napolitano apologized, which was not necessary, but nice.

The report can be drawn upon to justify more and better services for returning veterans, which would be a welcome change from how thing have/had been operating. Do you want to know what really offends veterans, and could turn them against their own country? When they are not given proper gear overseas, then put in hospital rooms with mold and rats. Additionally, if you really want to piss off veterans, underfund post-traumatic stress disorder tests and treatment, which has been the status quo. These things are more offensive to most veterans than a factual security report.

Ok, back to work.

Welcome home, man.

Maybe you've seen the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) public service spot on TV. It's called "Alone," but some people have been referring to as "Welcome Home, Man." It's pretty powerful.

Check out the one-minute video here.

Bob Herbert, whose NY Times columns are often below-average, gets points today for writing about this ad, and the soldier behind it. Check out his column.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

The Washington Post has a good piece on IAVA, check it out here.

Military service as service

Obama apparently spoke a lot about service during his commencement address at Wesleyan. He spoke about his own work in the south side of Chicago, which most people have heard about a few times. He gave examples of types of service that the graduates could do: Peace Corps, "renewable energy," education, poverty, etc.

Bill Kristol notes an omission.

Obama failed to discuss military service at all during the speech.

That's a substantial shortcoming not only on his part, but on the part of his advisers, speech writers, and whoever else might have looked at the speech.

One more reason Obama would benefit from being closer to Jim Webb.

Happy veterans day (no thanks to Bill O'Reilly)

My grandmother served in the Coast Guard during World War II. She stood by in Washington State, in case the Japanese invaded. I was lucky enough to spend Veterans Day weekend with her, albeit too briefly.

Her husband, my grandfather, no longer alive, waded ashore at the Battle of Guadalcanal with a rifle in his hand. He had an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on his chest, as he enlisted in the Marines at a young age. Her son, my uncle, spent 26 or so years in the military; first the National Guard, then Air Force. Three of her grandkids enlisted as well.

These are the people I think about on Veterans Day.

Other people include Dan Daley, who was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor. His famous yelled, as he ran toward what should have been certain death, "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?"

Compare these folks to some dirtbag I saw on TV -- the day before Veterans Day -- who dared to call John Murtha a "ballerina." Yes, Murtha is unpopular with conservatives and even some veterans for calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.

But Murtha, retired Colonel Murtha, volunteered for service in Vietnam in 1967. His country was sending its young men there to fight, so he went. He was also a drill instructor, and was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor for his service in Vietnam.

"Ballerina."

Anyway, this dirtbag who probably isn't worth me writing about -- he has his own TV show. The Bill O'Reilly Show or something.

The same year Murtha went to Vietnam, O'Reilly graduated from high school. Perfect age. But O'Reilly, like Dick Cheney, had other priorities.

And if people don't want to serve, that's fine. But don't call other people ballerinas or uncommitted to national security or whatever, just because they don't have the same blood lust as yourself, if you don't want to raise your hand and take an oath. Stay out of the conversation, chickenhawks.

Anyway, this has gone off on a tangent.

Happy Veterans Day, Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle Joe, Dad, everybody.

(More on the military-civilian gap here.

'Party over here, sacrifice over there'

This article in the NY Times.

It's kind of the same old hand wringing. Either you get it or you don't.

Good, but not great.

More on the military-civilian divide

The Washington Post Magazine has a decent piece on the subject of the (increasing) gap between the military and civilian worlds. I posted about this topic, after seeing some similar articles, last December.

The article rehashes some facts: For example, this book, "AWOL: The Absence of America's Upper Class From Military Service," pointed out that Yale's class of 1956 saw 400 grads - out of 750 - go into military service. The Post's article cites the same statistic, and notes that this year, one (1) Yale grad will join the Army.

Granted, there was a draft in '56, but still.

Another interesting factoid: One percent of Americans is currently in the military.

Actually, it's less than 1 percent. But either way, it's quite convenient for the rest of us. One is tempted to quote Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men," but one digresses.

Anyway, not much new, but still personally quite interesting. The Post article is by Kristin Henderson, apparently the author of "While They're at War." Haven't read it.

Post script: Of course, if we weren't conducting expeditionary missions and occupations around the globe, we wouldn't need as large of a military. Regardless, the trend of this "divide" is real and has implications for the functioning of our democratic republic, as Miguel points out in the comments.

And for the record, I support a European-style conscription (even though it's being phased out in most European countries), with options of the military, Peace Corps, National Parks, or other public services.

On yellow ribbons and the two Americas

(Note: This is not a political post. It is about the personal experiences, and those of family and friends, that shape perceptions regarding war.)

The people who put "I support the troops" yellow ribbons on their cars can be easy targets for jokes, because for many of them it seems too knee-jerk, arguably tacky, and even possibly hypcritical. Some drive ridiculous SUVs that tell the world, "I also support the ruling elites of oil-producing war-torn countries."

A quick search online produces yellow ribbon cookie cutters and yellow ribbon cell phone belt-pouches (see above). That probably seems absurd to many folks I know. Maybe the cell phone thing is. I laughed when I first saw it.

But then again, many Americans have no personal knowledge of the 150,000 military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even the 2 million elsewhere. There's a complete disconnect between the military families and the rest of the United States.

James Webb, the Democratic senator-elect in Virginia, discusses this subject in one of his excellent novels about Vietnam, "Fields of Fire." Webb was one of the most highly decorated Marines in Vietnam, but he wrote some dark and cynical work about the subject.

Anyway, his protagonist tells a group of college students that in Vietnam he only saw fellow soldiers who were "dudes, man. Dudes and truck drivers and coal miners and farmers."

Of the domestic situation during Vietnam, Webb described "a cultural gap that overrode any hint of generational divide."

That's what I'm talking about. A cultural gap. So many of us watch MTV's "Parental Control" or shop at the mall or even play video games about war all day, probably not thinking at all about the 3,000 folks who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who are over there today.

(Note: More Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than did on September 11, 2001. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have come home far more prone to suicide than the average American. And then there are those who are missing a limb or limbs. Of course far more Iraqis have been hurt and killed, but I digress.)

And it's not simply cultural, it is also a class gap.

It might seem obvious that rich people do not fight wars or serve in the military, this has not always been the case. The gap is greater now than it probably ever has been. Here is an interesting set of facts:

In 1956, 400 out of 750 in Princeton's graduating class went into the military. In contrast, in 2004, 9 members of Princeton's graduating class entered the services, and [Princeton] led the Ivy League in numbers. (Emphasis added.)

But income level is not the only demcarcation. Some families seem to be military families, while others do not. Neither is better than the other, but the divide exists.

(Political scientist Peter D. Feaver and journalist Thomas E. Ricks are among the many who have produced work on this subject.)

Indifferent: good or bad?

So a lot of us don't think about these numbers every day, and maybe there's nothing wrong with that. People often do not think about war when they are not directly affected by it. That's pretty normal, and I do not judge anyone of this perspective.

But a significant chunk of America does think daily about these things, because these Americans have no choice: they have a son or a daughter or a brother over there; they were over there themselves; they were in Vietnam or another war and see a lot of similarities; they were in the military in peacetime and now realize that their experience was a cakewalk compared to combat.

So while a yellow ribbon on an SUV is a funny cliche, perhaps that person has a different perspective than yours because of what his or her family members might be enduring.

There are simply two Americas in this regard. The liberal/conservative divide has little to do with it, although both dichotomies feed off each other. The military/civilian divide, though, is more about different experiences producing opposing perspectives.