U.S. military experience rare among '08 candidates

WASHINGTON – Though the next U.S. president will probably command soldiers in two separate wars, few of those hoping to win the job can say they've ever seen combat or even taken abuse from a drill sergeant. Of the 18 announced Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, only Republicans John McCain and Duncan Hunter have served on the front lines. Three others served in noncombat roles and another two served in the reserves.

AdvertisementVoters aren't likely to care very much, experts say. “I just don't think we expect that obligation, and that's because we don't expect it of ourselves either,” said Bruce Altschuler, a Vietnam veteran and political science professor at the State University of New York at Oswego.

That might allow voters and candidates to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Ohio Wesleyan University history professor Michael Flamm.

“If no candidates in 2008 are running on or against their Vietnam records, perhaps we won't have to look at Iraq through the prism of Vietnam,” he said. “Perhaps we will be able to look at the Iraq war as a new situation.”

That ended when Democrat Bill Clinton, who never served in the military, defeated Republican President George H.W. Bush, a decorated World War II veteran. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, another World War II combat veteran.

Republican George W. Bush, who spent the Vietnam years on U.S. soil as a member of the Air National Guard, defeated two Democratic candidates who served in Vietnam, Al Gore and John Kerry.

Experts say Americans' conflicted attitude toward the Vietnam War makes a military background less of an advantage.

Republicans Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama had not yet turned 18 by the time the draft was discontinued in 1973.

Democrat John Edwards, who became eligible in the waning years of the war, drew a high lottery number that was not called when the lottery determined who would be inducted into military service.

College and missionary service kept Mitt Romney out of the draft until 1970, when he drew a high lottery number.

Rudy Giuliani also drew a high lottery number in 1970 after receiving deferments as a student and law clerk.

Democrats Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich failed their physical examinations, as did Republican Tom Tancredo.

Republican Fred Thompson, who is expected to formally enter the race soon, received a deferment because he had children.

McCain's biography as a Navy airman who endured years of torture in a Hanoi prison is a central part of his appeal. Hunter, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has made military issues central to his career in Congress.

Republican Jim Gilmore served in the Army in West Germany, while Ron Paul served as an Air Force surgeon. Democrat Mike Gravel served in the Army in the 1950s.

Democrat Chris Dodd joined the Army Reserve when he left the Peace Corps in 1968. Republican Tommy Thompson joined after law school in 1966.

The candidates' collective lack of military experience reflects the population as a whole.

Veterans accounted for 11 percent of the voting age population in 2000, according to the U.S. Census, down from 21 percent in 1970. By 2030, that figure will shrink to 6 percent, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

“Service in the military provides perspective on war, perspective on sacrifice,” said University of Denver political -science professor Tom Knecht. “To the extent that we're losing that, that might be kind of a problem.”

Having not had the opportunity to yet read your entire post (as it was substantial) ... I will merely point out a couple of phrases and modifiers which I think lend credence to the possibility that Madison and Hamilton may have approved of the current state of the military.

Madison: “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government....”

The phrase that stands out to me is “fully equal to the resources of the country.” To my mind, that is EXACTLY why the United States requires an ample, well-funded, and well-armed military. As our “resources” and power have increased, so has the necessity of a large standing military.

While we were a fledgeling nation at the time of the Federalist Papers, separated from enemies by enormous oceans, lousy systems of travel, and archaic weapons ... we are now the most powerful nation in an ever-shrinking world.

Innovations in transportation, communications and weapons technology - when coupled with our status at the top of the heap - have made us a target for despots, crazies and enemies of liberty throughout the globe. In order for our Army to be equal to the burgeoning and increasingly disasterous threats around the globe ... we must have a large, standing Army.

A domestic militia will not suffice for a world that is no longer dominated by muskets, clipper ships and short-range weaponry. Modern weaponry and warfare techniques requires intense, full-time training ... our nation cannot be successfully defended by civilians with handguns when even the most pathetic Armies of the world have AK-47s and RPG’s (not to mention the growing list of nations with nuclear technology, ICBMs, Air Forces, etc.)

The Founders of this nation were not stupid men ... they allowed for flexibility in the Constitution in matters such as this PRECISELY so that the nation could adapt to technological and geopolitical changes in the world. Those changes have REQUIRED the use of a large standing military, dedicated FULL-TIME to the defense of our nation from foreign threats.

There is no Constitutional mandate for a small Army ... or that no standing Army be kept in peacetime. The Constitution says what it says ... if they had wanted to mandate a small Army that disbands in peacetime, they would have written it down.

That measure of flexibility is there for a reason - and we must use the flexibility to deal with situations as they change. There is a difference in honoring the doctrinal and philosophical roots of the founders (which I believe I am doing), and adhering to an opinion crafted over 200 years ago (times change).

The Federalist Papers offer a glimpse into the thinking of the Founders ... but they are NOT a founding document which must be adhered to - they are opinions of brilliant men who lived in a very different time. I believe we MUST adhere to the TEXT of the Constitution ... and where the text allows flexibility (such as in the size and scope of the Army), we are free to exploit that flexibility as is in the best interest of protecting the country.

Hemorrhage

Hi Hemorrhage,

Looking at the greater context, Madison clearly envisioned a small regular force which would be supplemented by a much larger militia force. FWIW, it should be noted that the primary interest in the mind of Madison and the others was not to allow the USA to exercise power elsewhere in the world, but to protect the homeland from invasion.

That, in and of itself, doesn't preclude a militia system, however....

Ah, but why do we need to assume that a civilian militia would be using handguns or other light arms in place of heavier weapons? After all, the civilian militias using muskets and cannon in the 18th century were using the state of the art military equipment for their day. What is to preclude a militia system similar in extent and scope to that which we used to have, and which the Swiss have traditionally had? A fully armed civilian militia presumably would include access to every weapon our military uses now - tanks, mortars, SAMs, the whole gamut. We trust 18 year old kids with the keys to an M1A1 Abrams, why couldn't we trust a 35 year old accountant? We could certainly maintain a large and powerful militia system made up of the fully trained militia members comprising the entire adult population. It might take a little sacrifice on our parts ("I can't hit the links this weekend, I've got to perform my annual qualification on PATRIOT down at the armoury"), but it's not like it couldn't be done. There's nothing even to preclude using the militia to exert power overseas or offensively, as was sometimes the case in even the early Roman Republic.

As for ICBMs and Air Forces, since those (of course) were not even conceived of in that day, these would presumably fall under the same province as the Navy - national forces, and a right use of a small professional force of warriors. Still, the context surrounding the argumentation and philosophy that gave us our Constitution makes it pretty clear that the Founders were speaking of land forces when they spoke of a standing army.

You're right - they WEREN'T stupid men. They knew the dangers of maintaining large professional military forces which could conceivably be used to overawe and suborn the civilian population.

I think it's quite reasonable to argue that the reason they didn't write down specifically that there should be a small standing army in peacetime is because they would have considered this to be tacit knowledge in their day. It's the same reason why they didn't specifically define the militia in the 2nd amendment as "the body of all the people", even though we know this is what they meant from the greater context of their writings and statements about the subject.

True....but the Federalist Papers enlighten us as to more than just the thinkinf of the Founders. These documents were *specifically* written so as to explain exactly what each part of the new Constitution meant, and to defend those ideological propositions against counterargumentation. We conservatives are always talking about "the Founders' intent". Well, the Federalist Papers are the single best place to find out that intent because that is EXACTLY why they were written.

I believe we MUST adhere to the TEXT of the Constitution ... and where the text allows flexibility (such as in the size and scope of the Army), we are free to exploit that flexibility as is in the best interest of protecting the country.

But therein lies the rub. If you don't know the context or the intent, then you've really got nothing. Adhering to the text of the Constitution means one thing for you, and another for Joe Liberal down the street. People can make the "text" mean anything they want it to mean, and can just as easily claim as you can that their meaning is the "obvious" meaning of "the text".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.