Should members of the Armed Services Committee have military service?

2015-08-06T08:46:30-04:00

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 6 at 2015 8:56 AM

2015-08-06T08:56:25-04:00

Yes & no. It can help & hinder.

Think about all the stupid things that are just institutionalized into us. Sometimes it takes a "Civilian" to go "Why the $^%&$&$ are you doing that? That's just stupid." Sometimes it takes someone with no military service to look at all the asinine things we do, and go "we can change that."

As an example, Hon. Ray Mabus (SecNav) has started making A LOT of positive changes in the Department of the Navy. He's never been in the military. Had that been a prerequisite, we would have missed out on him. We may have still got those changes... but when?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 6 at 2015 9:01 AM

2015-08-06T09:01:35-04:00

No. I say this because of what Sgt Aaron Kennedy said below and the fact that some politicians use their military service as a stepping stone, (or a check the box for office deal) and litmus test against others. It doesn't take into account if they were any good or not, and you can have a Sh*tbag troop get out and still be a Sh*tbag person.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Aug 6 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-08-06T09:46:32-04:00

SCPO David Lockwood - While I agree with what Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS said, I think that, as a general rule, experience is better than no experience. There are exceptions, like the one SGT Kennedy mentioned, however, I think that is rare. I would bet that he is getting a lot of advice from Navy personnel and, to his credit, he is listening. Imagine if he had no experience and was not listening...

Response by Lt Col Brad Hamant made Aug 7 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-08-07T10:49:08-04:00

The best teams are diverse teams...applies to Congressional committees, too. The best ideas and recommendations come from groups that represent as many backgrounds and experiences as possible. So, no ... such a "rule" would only reduce diversity, limit the committee's influence, and stymie critical thought. It's a challenge in this case because Congress itself is not very diverse. Compared to the electorate at large, it's too heavy on lawyers, males, non-Vets, white people, and the wealthy. That's a much tougher nut to crack!