Congress Never Debates Matter of War Anymore. Is It Because There Are Fewer Veterans in Congress?

In 1971, military veterans composed 73 percent of Congress. By 2014, when the 114th Congress began, the number of veterans had diminished to its lowest number ever — just 18.7 percent.

Why?

One reason, the WWII draft. Overall, 16.1 million Americans served during WWII. According to the latest numbers at the Department of Defense, 1.3 million Americans are serving in the military right now. The proportion of veterans in Congress to the general population, therefore, isn’t out of whack. But nevertheless: Does the shrinking number of veterans in Congress affect debates about foreign policy and defense?

According to Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz. (F, 20%), the only female Republican veteran in the House of Representatives, yes. “I am very concerned,” she told Conservative Review. McSally served in the Air Force for 26 years, and has the distinguished title of being the first female combat pilot.

In Congress, Rep. McSally is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for Department of Defense oversight, debates about war, as well as the drafting of the National Defense Authorization Act to establish the yearly Pentagon budget. McSally said people “can’t imagine how hard it is to be on these [House] committees if you don’t have any background in the military.”

Congressman Joe Wilson, R-S.C. (D, 65%) who famously shouted “You lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 address on his signature health care law, told Conservative Review: “My service in the Army reserves and the South Carolina Army National Guard has shaped my foreign policy experience by understanding the importance of having our allies trust us and our enemies respect us. It has also shown me firsthand the value of peace through strength.”

It makes total sense that military experience gained on the ground, especially in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, where McSally was deployed, would give a member of Congress valuable insight into what the American military is doing in the respective theaters, and what is or isn’t working.

“I think [veterans] are going to be more thoughtful and strategic, and ask questions like, ‘What’s our objective here?’” said Rep. McSally. “That’s our mindset.”

But Rep. Joe Wilson thinks that even if a member didn’t serve in the military, having a family relation who did also has an effect on one’s thinking. “While I think that veterans provide excellent firsthand perspective, I believe that many members of Congress who did not serve rely on their strong connections to the military — the service of a parent, child, other family member, or constituents they speak with when in their district — an equally valuable perspective.”

“An excellent example of this,” he added, “is chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Jeff Miller, R-Fla. (C, 73%). Though Chairman Miller never personally served, he is a strong advocate for our troops, veterans, and military families throughout his distinguished career in Congress.”

There is still some firsthand war insight in Congress, even if the number of veterans has declined from its post-WWII and Cold War heyday. That’s the good news.

Here’s the bad news: Congress rarely debates what military action we need to take—or not take. Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to debate and declare matters of war when necessary. Is it because the number of veterans in Congress is declining, or has the internal structure within Congress changed?

ISIS has been a force of evil in the Middle East for three years. The United States has already been at war against Islamist extremists in the Middle East for 15 years, and with no end in sight. When the Obama administration was considering military intervention in Syria to fight ISIS, it claimed it didn’t need congressional authorization to engage in airstrikes because the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan gave it authority.

Per the War Powers Act, the president only has 60 days (with a 30-day withdrawal period) to engage American troops in a conflict without congressional authorization. According to the Constitution and federal statute, the White House has no authority after that window to keep troops in a conflict without congressional authorization. The War Powers Act was introduced to reiterate the constitutional check on the president’s authority, and Congress absolutely could have stopped President Obama’s actions in the Middle East. But they have not.

Apart from a few dissenting voices, most of Congress didn’t want to touch the issue. Debates over sending American men and women in harm’s way is never a fun one, and it’s always politically charged. Some members want to grant the president broad authority to fight ISIS indefinitely, and some members think his authority should be limited and only exerted within a time frame. For former Speaker John Boehner and now Speaker Paul Ryan, the easy route has been to avoid the issue entirely.

So to this day, over two years after President Obama initiated airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, there hasn’t been a real debate in Congress about how to combat ISIS, and whether the president’s power should be limited or expanded in his efforts there. The Obama administration has put 5,000 troops on the ground in Iraq — without congressional authorization. And there’s been barely a peep about it in Congress.

President Obama also put troops on the ground in Libya in 2011 without congressional authorization. As The Atlantic reported this year, “In recent interviews with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg on the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ the president bluntly said that the mission in Libya ‘didn’t work.’ Behind closed doors, according to Goldberg, he calls the situation there a ‘shit show.’”

Where was Congress?

To constitutional scholar Lou Fisher, Congress’ lack of action is nothing new. In his book, “Presidential War Power,” Fisher points out it has been happening since President Harry Truman sent troops to Korea in 1950. “Truman in Korea, Bush in Iraq, Clinton in Haiti and Bosnia — in each instance a president circumvented Congress by relying on either the UN or NATO,” for approval.

When asked why Congress has become inert on issues of war in the past few decades, Fisher (a former researcher at the Library of Congress) told Conservative Review, “In working with members of Congress and their staff from 1970 to 1994, it was a pleasant experience to be in close touch with lawmakers and their staff who fully appreciated the checks and balances and were proud to defend their institution. To me, that commitment declined when the House decided to shift power away from the independent committees and subcommittees and place it with the Speaker. The commitment was now not to the institution but to a single individual, who could use that power of the Speaker’s office to decide who were placed on committees and subcommittees.”

Basically, Fisher sees Congress’ inertia as a result of a restructuring of how Congress works, and not so much the decline of the number of veterans in Congress. The historical timeline he lays out in “Presidential War Powers” buttresses his argument — presidents were going to war without congressional authorization before the drastic decline of veterans in Congress.

All things considered, Fisher said, “It’s a complicated subject.”

But to veterans like Rep. Martha McSally, who is currently serving in Congress, “We need as many veterans as possible at the table.” (For more from the author of “Congress Never Debates Matter of War Anymore. Is It Because There Are Fewer Veterans in Congress?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.