Military service among politicians is an interesting issue. World War I was short for US involvement, although it was exceptionally deadly given that short time period. Most people in the military--particularly non-career military (and we don't have an especially strong history of retired military moving into politics)--will be between the ages of 18 and 30 (probably more like 18-25). But when WWII took place, we had a total mobilization, so the overwhelming majority of men born between 1911 and 1927 served in some capacity. Following WWII, men running for political office were very likely to have served, and at the Presidential level, once Ike completed his second term of service, forty nine years after the beginning of the WWII generation (1911), it's unsurprising that most of the men running for that office had served. Once you get to 1993, WWII vets would have been in the 66+ range, so getting pretty old for office (historically speaking). In the meantime, fewer people served in Korea. However, at that time (the early 90s), we still had many, many elected officials who had served in WWII (or Korea) and hadn't yet retired.
Which was also when questions about Vietnam service were big in politics. Unlike the total mobilization of WWII, the mobilization and draft for Vietnam resulted in a higher percentage of privileged young men avoiding service. So when those people were running for office (and it's mostly privileged people who end up running for office), there were lots of questions about whether, how, and why they did or did not serve. There were still many WWII vets in office, but it was then time for the Boomers to take the reins, and the Boomer's had a much different experience with mobilization than their parents' generation. So whereas service was practically compulsory for the Greatest Generation, and thus most of them had served, committment to country became a big questionmark for the Boomers
During that period between 1960 and 1993 there were many electeds who were not just vets, but had served heroically. Kennedy and G.H.W. Bush chief among them, but others in Congress also fit the bill, like Daniel Inouye. In the Boomer generation there were some as well, like Bob Kerrey. For the Boomers, military service wasn't a litmus test, but it was strange for the voting public to transition from the vets of the WWII generation, to the Boomer politicians, so military service was still looked at closely, and lots of the Boomer politicians did serve. But then people started trying to differentiate that service, which--maybe because I'm a non-combat vet--I find very distasteful.
Since the end of the Vietnam-era draft, military service has been voluntary, and the military has remained much smaller, meaning there are far fewer people who served. Unsurprisingly, there are far fewer elected leaders with military service. At this point, anyone who has served did so of their own volition when most of their peers did not, so who cares whether they were in supply, comms, or the infantry? Well, extra points for the infantry, but still points for the supply clerks. (FWIW, I was in a combat branch, but not the infantry).
But I digress.
All of which is to say: happy Veterans' Day to those who served. :-)
