It’s been claimed that those in the administration most eager to send 500,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, and airpersons into Iraq have, in general, zero military experience themselves and that retired senior officers are, in general, against such action at this time. Is there a quick and cost-free way to assess this claim? Google hasn’t helped much. For instance, I could establish that the veep’s official bio mentions no militaryservice but I could find nothing on the Secretary of Defense. The only helpful site I found wanted $35.00 per search. Is there a cost-free way of finding out quickly who did and who did not serve in the U.S. military?
IIRC, a Service Member’s current and past units of assignment is releasable information. I’m pretty sure you can find some info on that at http://www.bupers.navy.mil.
Now how about putting a cite or two in support of your not so veiled accusations against the civilian leadership of this great nation? The way our system of government works, as dictated by our constitution, is that the civilian government is in charge of the military. Thus, the matter of military experience or lack thereof is irrelevant.
If you’re looking for official records kept by the military, then that would be a limited yes. The National Personnel Records Center will give out the following information to the eneral public without the veteran’s written authorization:
and is free of charge. A Standard Form (SF) 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records can be mailed in. If it takes longer than 90 days you can send in a followup requesting the status of your original request.
- Horseflesh
14 years in Army Personnel (only 6 more to go!)
As a professional genealogist, I can second Horseflesh’s concise and accurate post.
One other thing I will add is that a disastrous 1973 fire at the military records division of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis destroyed 80% of the records of Army personnel who were discharged 1912-1959, and 75% of the records of Air Force personnel who were discharged 1947-1963. The records had not been indexed or microfilmed.
Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard service records were not affected by the 1973 fire.
For more information:
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records.html
Check out this pit thread. Some good links in it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131963&highlight=military
Thanks for the helpful posts. I guess the answer is no, there is no QUICK way of obtaining this information.
And Monty, I don’t know where your paranoid delusions about “veiled accusations” come from and I am mystified by the “thought” process that simultanenously “demonstrates” that military experience is not relevant (“Thus, the matter of military experience or lack thereof is irrelevant”) AND considers any questioning of the military experience of government leaders to be an “accusation” but I do know that this kind of crap doesn’t belong in GQ. Moderator?
Regarding availability/releasability of service numbers: That’s for the old service numbers. Nowadays, a Service Member’s service number is his or her Social Security Number and that’s not releasable information.
Yeah: My though processes are quite logical. Military experience doesn’t have jack to do with ability to: (a) lead a nation constituted to be led by civilians, and (b) issue valid, lawful, and constitutional instructions (such as declaring war) to the military subject to said civilian leadership.
I’m not paranoid. Apparently you (or your informant {"It’s been claimed […].}) is a tad paranoid or some sort of conspiracy theorist. That’s essentially the cite I’m asking for. Claimed by whom?
And my question to you wasn’t crap. I asked for a cite and gave a rather valid description of the phrasing of the OP.
And I’m certainly not going to let this pass:
That’s disingenuous of you, bordering on not being truthful. For one thing, where did I say “any questioning?” Look at your phrasing of the OP.
THAT shows your bias against this particular administration. For one thing, you’re making two claims here with no support. One claim is that the administration is “most anxious.” Care to provide any proof that they’re anxious to go to war. IME the administration is kind of hot on the idea of avoiding war–getting the other country (in this case Iraq) to start acting like they belong in the community of nations. The other claim is that those in the administration have no military experience. The top dude in the administration does have military experience. And the most important thing you’ve forgotten, ignored, or just decided not to mention, is that it’s been a long time since the United States was involved in a war when an incredibly large numberof its citizenry had to be in uniform.
As I sais, your posting is disingenuous, both the OP and your last comment to me.
I guess we’ve answered the OP, but before this thread gets closed or renamed and tossed into the fires of GD I’d like to add a few comments.
“The administration”, as you put it, CAN send troops to parts of the world to engage in limited action for a limited amount of time (IIRC, 90 days) without authorization from Congress. Unless you think that they have Congress in their back pocket as well. I might also point out that the President has a whole panel of advisors who DO have a huge amount of military (combat) experience. He also has advisors on how to handle difficult matters using diplomacy, economic embargo, and a host of other non-violent means. Ultimately it is up to the President on which course of action to decide, but there are usually agonizing moments leading up to his/her decision. Whether or not he/she may have had prior military experience and whether it will have an impact on their decision is debatable. At that position of power they are so far removed from the battlefield that a parallel to their previous military experience would be hard to draw.
I assume you’re talking about the draft in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. You’re mostly right. One thing I read about during Desert Storm, however, was the tactic of calling up large numbers of Reservists. One of the reasons (so I read), was that Reservists come from all parts of the US, not just military bases, and so are part of the civilian population more than not. All of a sudden, nearly EVERYONE knew someone or had someone from their home town involved in the conflict. These people rallied behind their own, and therefore rallied behind the government to get the conflict over with in a hurry in order to bring their loved ones back home. This made some of the military tactics a little more palatable to the general population, such as the (mostly accurate) surgical strikes made in and around Baghdad.
Aside from the fact that the reserves are also 46% of the military.
(http://www.defenselink.mil/ra/ondemand/reserves101_files/frame.htm)
Ya beat me to it, censored. Thanks. FYI, Horseflesh, I spent 13 months in the USAR between my active Army and active Navy stints.
Actually it says that the Ready Reserves comprise 54% of the military strength (46% is Active Component). If they include the Individual Ready Reserve then the percentage is closer to 60% (I can’t link to it but read the text at the bottom of the ARMY GUARD & RESERVE OVERVIEW slide). Which just lends strength to the allegation that calling up the Reserves in large numbers to directly support Desert Storm rather than backfilling vacated AC units (though this happened as well) at their bases was indeed a tactic to get the civilian population behind the government’s stance in the war. Now, whether the Reserves & NG are as combat ready as their AC brethren is debated occassionaly in the Army Times. From my experience in Desert Storm being part of what was a completely made up unit of about half Regular Army and half Reservists, they weren’t ready for any such thing. Other people may have had different experiences with Reserve units but I heard similar tales from other RA service members I encountered while over there.
And FWIW, I’ve been RA (7.5 yrs), AR (3 yrs), and NG (3 yrs and counting). Not that it really means anything here.
I won’t comment further on this because I’m not military nor do I have an extensive knowledge of this subject. However, (nitpickin’ time :)) the slide ‘Reserve Components’ says, under U.S. Reserve Components: Force Manpower: about 46% of Total Military Force.
The 46%/54% figure seems to be for the USA.
(was the IRR used in Desert Storm/Shield?)
It seems they have some misleading slides. 8 slides after the one you quote there is one titled “Percentages of Active and Selected Reserve Manpower FY 2001” that gives the Army percentages for Regular and Reserve as 46% and 54%. Maybe it’s just coincidence that those percentages are reveresed when taking all the services into account. The Army is the only one I feel qualified in any way to talk about and I have always seen the number of Reservists outnumber Active Duty service members.
Considering that the 2nd slide is titled “The United States Reserve Forces” and that www.defenselink.mil is a US military web site, I’d say you’re correct.
Anecdotal evidence only on my part. I encountered a few IRR members while in DS. They were called up because of their specialized knowledge. I do not believe a significant number were put on active duty.
Walloon:
Pardon my skepticism, but I have always believed that the fire at the Records Center was nowhere NEAR as extensive as I’ve heard. Even AFTER the fire, so many conflicting reports were released to the public!
My dad’s retired AF. My grandfather was retired Army. Hubster is retired Army. And WHENEVER anyone tries to get old records, DoD pulls the “fire at St Louis Records Center” out of the barracks hat as an excuse.
You just mentioned discharge papers. I’ve heard that tired old song for missing dependents’ medical records, confirmation of service time, awards received, yadda yadda yadda.
With all the years I’ve lived as a military dependent, dealing with the red-tape hassles, the “hurry-up-and-wait” mentality, and “dependents are no better than doggy-do on your shoe” treatment… I sure don’t buy the “fire at the St Louis Records Center” excuse, either. I don’t doubt that there was an actual FIRE, but I’m very skeptical as to the extent of the loss.
~VOW
No, I didn’t.
Blasted acronyms; I meant USA as United States Army.
FWIW: Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant.
Mis-read it, Walloon
Sorry.
~VOW