By Jordan Bravin

On February 23^rd, Michigan Congressman and World War II veteran John Dingell announced he would not be running for reelection, ending his 58-year run in the House. Coupled with the defeat of Texas representative Ralph Hall in the Republican primary in May, Congress will be losing its last remaining World War II veterans. With Korean and Vietnam War vets also thinning out, the memory of mass war on Capitol Hill and its consequences may be lost — and with it, a vital source of perspective, wisdom, and character.

The face of warfare has dramatically transformed since the Second World War. The nationalized armies of the grand, global wars have given way to grinding guerrilla-style insurgencies and technology that have revolutionized the nature of the wars that we fight. These changes have required a new understanding of victory. Treaties and international peace agreements signed to great fanfare by national leaders at famous palaces or on the decks of battleships have become something of a long forgotten past as controversial foreign armed interventions, peacekeeping operations, and nation building become the new normal.

Dingell and Hall fought during a time when mass mobilization of the home front provided both the infrastructure and support that our troops overseas needed to ensure victory. Almost 12% of the U.S. population wore the uniform during WWII. Transportation was pooled. People grew ‘victory gardens’ to make up for food shortages. Gasoline, oil and tires were rationed, as were pantyhose and shoes. But there was little grumbling-there was a sense of pride and shared sacrifice by those at home who stepped up to support the war and do their part. The well-organized armies of the Axis presented a tangible threat to Americans at home. In the Pacific Theater, Japanese ground troops invaded and held U.S. territory on the Aleutian Islands off Alaska for an entire year. German and Japanese espionage and sabotage were real dangers. Even after the war fears of a strengthening Soviet Union were more than enough to rally the American spirit and drive civilian men and women into the factories and assembly lines of the rapidly spinning military industry. In this “golden era,” victory in combat meant something to everybody—everyone had some skin in the game.

Dingell and Hall come from a generation of men and women who understand what it means for the United States to commit troops overseas, the necessity of a properly-funded military, and that mobilization at home is often equally as important as mobilization abroad.

Wars since have born little resemblance. The Korean War was not well understood or received on the home front in a war-weary country ready to move on from years of conflict. During Vietnam, home became the second front. The grand pomp and fanfare that once welcomed soldiers home were usurped by violent protests and peace rallies. Americans had grown tired of war and began to question government policy for the first time. These controversial fights were followed by a string of smaller conflicts in South America, Eastern Europe, and Africa, tepidly received at home and involving as small a contingent of U.S. troops as could be gotten away with.

The September 11^th attacks brought a spark to that once-kindled flame of American spirit. But as U.S. troops flooded the Middle East, the covert nature of the enemy made it impossible to rally behind a unified front. Terrorism was tangible enough to the people back home, but when it came to defeating the enemy and focusing American efforts in the Middle East, it often came down to the indiscernible—Who? Where? and How? Lack of clarity, controversial domestic politics, and the impossibly high costs of maintaining forces overseas divided Americans. Some saw a duty to ‘support the troops’ no matter what. Others blamed soldiers for enabling unnecessary wars of choice. Most were caught somewhere in between, not blaming those who served, but unable to wholeheartedly support this generation’s veterans as they had their grandfathers.

Today, America is coming to the end of an era in which it has simultaneously fought two wars in the far-off Middle East for over a dozen years. Despite the length of this conflict, less than 1% of Americans have served in the military and even less have experienced combat. Beyond the politics of it all, the effect on the American home-front has been negligible. There has been no rationing, no great drive for Americans to buy war bonds, and no call to mobilize national industry to support the war effort. While the United States has sent and lost soldiers to the wars of the 21^st century, most Americans have not experienced so much as a bump in the road.

A Different Generation

Dingell and Hall come from a generation of men and women who understand what it means for the United States to commit troops overseas, the necessity of a properly-funded military, and that mobilization at home is often equally as important as mobilization abroad. This era of veterans, steeped in experience, learned lessons in warfare which today’s policymakers never have. Congress today has the lowest representation of Veterans since World War II. In the 1970s as many as 300 Representatives and 70 Senators could claim military experience. Today, that number has dropped to 89 in the House and 19 in the Senate. The result is that the majority of those who make vital American national security and defense policy have never seen war and lack a crucial, firsthand understanding of military needs. Careers in bureaucracy teach lessons in politics, but they teach nothing of war. Often, self-interest and politics have been the basis for decision making rather than experience, perspective, and an understanding of national security strategy.

It has been a tumultuous Congressional term for defense and veteran-related policy. The Department of Veterans Affairs has, again, been mired in a backlog scandal, leading to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki. Congressional haggling over defense sequestration continues with the future of important military maintenance programs with new combat platforms, troops’ pay, and benefits hanging in the balance. Meanwhile, U.S. approaches to both Syria and Crimea have been marred by congressional division, inaction, and indecision.

More than ever, there exists in Congress a desire to maintain global military presence and yet pay an absolute minimum to do so. A Congress lacking in veteran representation is one poorly versed in the nature of war, and there lies a unique comfort in knowing that the veterans who have fought, seen, and understand warfare are helping to decide the future of security and defense policy. The men and women who have gained experience in uniform, from the front lines to the deckplates, understand the needs of the military and its members. Veterans are all too aware of how income cuts and loss of benefits impact military families, and know first-hand what lack of funding for maintaining equipment and investing in new weapons platforms can mean for units deployed abroad. If the desire to maintain a global military presence exists, then America’s veterans have the experience and detailed military knowledge to help do so.

As we lose Dingell and Hall’s era of veterans in Congress, the risk of losing the memories and lessons learned during a time of unparalleled global warfare is both present and real. The low veteran representation in Congress foreshadows a near future of decision-making made by those who have never led or been led into war. The next time America’s volunteer military is called to fight on foreign shores, the call will be made by representatives and senators who come from backgrounds in business and bureaucracy. The military is an instrument of policy, and when that policy is made, it must be well informed. With rising conflict in Eastern Europe, growing tensions in the South China Sea, and a slate of domestic military issues at home, there is no better time for the military’s own to be found amongst the seats of government.

Jordan Bravin is an undergraduate at Yale University, an NROTC Midshipman, and an editorial intern with Cicero Magazine. His opinions and comments are the author’s own, and not endorsed, supported, or verified by the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other association.