The Military, the Left, and the rest of America. How do you see it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

This is an invitation to discuss the relationship between the Democratic Party, especially the Left of the Democratic Party, and the U.S. Military. The intent is open ended, but I would like to read comments on how those who see themelves as being from the left view the Military, and vice versa. Though I personally support him, I don't mean this to be a Wesley Clark thread, and I am not asking for comments on Clark specifically.

I have been thinking about the accepted wisdom that the majority of Americans generally view the Democratic Party to be "softer" on defence than the Republican Party. Do you think either the perception or the reality is true? Why? Is it a good or bad thing to be "softer" than the Republicans? What are the implications for the Democratic Party in general and for this election in particular if that perception and/or reality is true? What type of military if any do you support the United States maintaining? In general is there a humanitarian role open for the Military, and would one be popular or unpopular with you or with the public?

This is not a veiled "fear" thread. I have spent my political life previously arguing for a far smaller military, with a leaner budget and less expensive and complex weapons systems that won't drain our budget. Leftists, at least in my lifetime (I'm 54), have defined National Security far more as addressing our essential human needs than as militarily defending U.S. economic and/or security interests. Should that stance be modiified at all? Do you think 9/11 has fundamentally changed anything for you, or for us as a nation?

[Scott Lee]

1. Many in both parties want to see the military as thug for big business

It's not limited to the GOP at all, but they have certainly taken the lead in this morally bankrupt view since 9/11.

As a New Leftist, I support the idea of our military performing as it was intended; for defense. I categorically reject the idea that it should be used to prop up one or more businesses, steal resources of other nations, topple their governments or gobble up territory for the United States. Militaristic hegemony is wrong.

Being that the Democratic Party has, since the 60s, been the party more prone to vangaurd social justice and human causes, it has implicitly been against fast and loose play with our military. As a result of 9/11, the conservative right has successfully fear mongered the people into excusing military excesses that would have been fiercely resisted two decades ago. And, as a result of Democratic fear and irritation at losing so many elections and Congressional power, many Democrats are jumping on the gung ho military bandwagon.

The shitmess we now call the Iraq War is one horrid blessing in disguise. This is a chance handed to Democrats to take the issue back again, redefine US military power as defensive again, and put these war profiteers, manipulative fear mongers and hate spreaders out to pasture.

[dvddrone]

35. Yep.

It's time not only to skin these Republicans alive, but to take back our military. Fucking chickenhawks, the lot of them. And I do support *real* humanitarian intervention by our military. I require the President to TELL ME that's what it is beforehand, not after his fractured fairy tales have been discovered.

Yes, our military's been ill-used by both Republicans and Democrats. Yes, we need some sort of national defense - but DEFENSE is the operative word, not this loony, pre-emptive OFFENSE the neo-clowns would have us engage in against the rest of the world.

I support a small, highly trained, well-equipped, quickly mobile force. Period. The fucking Cold War is over - the Chinese have their own problems and pose no serious threat for a few decades. By the time their time to rule the world rolls around, who knows where we'll be? This fear-mongering regarding amorphous terrorists is just a corporate back-up plan, since the old Soviet retired so ungraciously from the military/industrial cash-cow game.

I agree with the originator of the thread - this farce in Iraq is a golden opportunity to prove to even the most hard-headed of conservatives that the neo-clowns hate America, loathe Americans, and will happily break the bank and kill us all to make a buck. In their effort to prove themselves the biggest dicks on the planet, they've succeeded (I hope) in handing Dems a big ol' stick to beat them with.

Republicans the Party of serious super-power responsibility? Not anymore.

Elizabeth

[Prodemsouth]

2. It hasn't been the same since Truman fired Mac.. Then the Vietnam War

damaged the relationship as well, Johnson got that thing rolling. Then the loudest doves were Democrats. Carter's hostages in Iran and his being ineffective at their release all contributed to the view that the Republicans are stronger on National Security than the Dems. As for the "left"- anti war protesters, GI spitting on, Flag burners- that is what most of America, not just people in the Armed Service thinks of when you mention the left and national security. And that is why I say we are doomed if we walk into 2004 with this preception, but sometimes a justified view that the Democratic party is weak on defense.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. I have nothing against the military.

We do need a strong national defense (I'm opposed to the missle defense system). We should build a strong defense with the PROPER tools that our men and women REALLY NEED, not all of this Corporate, Special Interest Pork Crap! Military force should be used ONLY when absolutly neccissary, the last option! A.K.A, not for little ventures like the one that we are currently in.

[durutti]

4. My Thoughts

I have been thinking about the accepted wisdom that the majority of Americans generally view the Democratic Party to be "softer" on defence than the Republican Party. Do you think either the perception or the reality is true? Why? Is it a good or bad thing to be "softer" than the Republicans?

It's definitely perception, not reality. The United States is surrounded by oceans and allies on all sides. It has the most powerful military in the world. No other country is a viable threat to the United States.

We have a lot more than we need for "defense", and have had since World War II. We have troops in half the countries of the world, are occupying one country and wreaking havoc in another, bankrolling Israeli imperialism -- the list goes on. "Defense" means adequate guarding of the coastline and nothing else.

Furthermore, this kind of drive for empire is what sows the seeds of threats like terrorism in the first place. A great offense has NOT proven to be a good defense.

Even if by "defense" you mean the military more generally, it's still not true. Democrats were enthusiastic Cold Warriors. JFK got elected by largely by criticizing Nixon for not throwing enough support behind the arms race. LBJ escalated the Vietnam War.

After the Cold War, a handful of Democrats advocated cutting military spending. Today, their numbers are dwindling.

What type of military if any do you support the United States maintaining?

The military budget should by at least a third -- probably by half. Adequate defense of the coastline and nothing else.

In general is there a humanitarian role open for the Military, and would one be popular or unpopular with you or with the public?

I don't think that it's possible for the military to have a humanitarian role. Our institutions don't allow for it. Any kind of intervention has to benefit one of the ruling groups in society. I can't think of any genuine humanitarian intervention anywhere in the history of the world. There are plenty of imperial adventures masquerading as humanitarian interventions, though. Even Hitler tried to portray his conquests in such a way.

Leftists, at least in my lifetime (I'm 54), have defined National Security far more as addressing our essential human needs than as militarily defending U.S. economic and/or security interests. Should that stance be modiified at all? Do you think 9/11 has fundamentally changed anything for you, or for us as a nation?

Absolutely not. How will advanced weapons systems prevent planes from flying into buildings?

There is no monolithic threat of terrorism. In fact, international terrorism has been on the decline for some time. 9/11 was in many ways a freak accident. Due to extreme incompetence (or perhaps conspiracy), the many mechanisms we have to prevent terrorist attacks all failed.

Consider what exactly happened on 9/11. Terrorists flew hijacked planes into buildings. They didn't fire missiles at them. They didn't gun people down. Doesn't that reflect a sort of desparation? Flying planes into buildings wasn't necessarily their methods of choice; it wasn't the only one available to them.

Pumping up the military is really an irrational reaction to 9/11. The same goes for the USA PATRIOT ACt. There are more logical things to do:

1. Pursue international cooperation and support international institutions.

2. Cease the oppression and exploitation of peoples that breeds terrorism.

3. Crack down on money-laundering banks and fronts for terrorist fundraising.

4. Extend the hand of friendship to the Muslim world and assist in its development.

5. Develop and implement more effective preventative security measures.

6. Actively support and participate in disarmament efforts.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. The military is not a monolithe

I just discovered this today speaking to someone who is career Air Force. There is a snob thing going on between careerist and reservist. And another snob thing between the Air Force and the Army. Apparently, the Air Force is considered the cream of the crop. They get the Level one education offers (No $ caps). While reservists generally get duty in the Army as foot soldiers and they get level two education offers ($15,000 a year limits) This is what I was told, so don't quote me.

But, the person I was talking to definitely had an attitude about being in the Air Force and how his son would never serve on the front line (as if that's work for the plebes) but that he would serve his country in the Air Force which is an elite corps.

I asked an innocent question to him when he told me this. I asked him, why are you all leaving all the fighting to the reservists? He answered, they were trained to do that job. And I replied, "We have at least 425 dead American soldiers and what they're not telling us is that there's over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians. So you have a lot of pissed off people in that country. Now you can't tell me that those reservists were trained for that kind of duty when they're shooting anything that moves and making the situation worse for everyone. Those kids enlisted thinking they weren't going to have to do more than put out fires in their state, or help in cases of flooding. So why don't we use career soldiers to do the fighting?"

No answer.

[welshTerrier2]

6. We need a clear platform plank and much better communication

Democrats historically have done an incredibly poor job educating the voters on this very important issue ...

First, and this is the easiest point to make, we must differentiate between supporting the military, i.e. the personnel who serve the country in the military, and the pentagon and large defense contractors, who often put there own corporate interests ahead of the national interest ...

Second, we seem to do a poor job communicating what we mean by ensuring the U.S. has the best possible military ... many Americans will blindly toss around cliches like "you can't solve every problem we have just by throwing money at them" ... but for some reason, democrats are accused of being soft on defense when they vote against funding key weapons systems ... we need to do a better job highlighting how wasteful defense spending weakens our defense ... and we need to do a better job highlighting how massive spending on weapons systems detracts from other critical programs that could hurt this country ...

I just saw some statistics that showed the U.S. ranks poorly in math and science when compared to other industrialized nations ... this does not bode well for producing a talent pool to stay competitive in the area of new defense technologies ... we will not continue to be a world leader, either in defense or economically, if our school systems lag behind the rest of the world ... democrats seem to get so energized about teacher salaries and "after school programs" and hot lunch programs (all important issues) that they fail to win points with voters on the strategic necessity of remaining competitive academically with the rest of the world ...

You cannot really be for a "stronger defense" without strengthening our education system ... and arguing that improving education will derive solely from national standards and greater accountability is nonsense .. we need a commensurate increase in resources and a focussing of the national will to begin to solve the problem ...

Democrats do not seem to be able to focus the national discussion on the proper use of our military ... anytime we oppose the use of force, we're labelled as weak on defense ... and we're hurt by this label because we have not laid the groundwork for our positions ...

do you think the american public is focussed on the "doctrine of imminent threat"? i'm afraid the only reason they've turned against bush's insane Iraq policy is that they have no patience ... if the fighting were not still going on, americans would still say they were in favor of the invasion ... the point is that there is no moral standard at work here because democrats failed to make a case for a moral standard ... and, absent a standard, our position is seen by many as unclear ... and rightfully so ... democrats were all over the spectrum on this war ...

Has 9/11 changed anything for us as a nation? absolutely !! it has instilled fear in many americans and highlighted the need for a more effective intelligence service ... and this needs to come at the expense of massive reductions in useless weapons systems ... that's not being weak on defense ... it's being strong ... and smart about defense ... you fight terrorism with information ... not with bombers and missiles ...

Democrats need a clear, concise and consistent message on defense ... we are victims of GOP labels because we have failed to present this message effectively to the American people ...

[Ecotopian]

7. Security for who?

The Republicans love to define national security in simplistic conservative terms where the underlying foundation of their message is their faith in their quasi-religion of capitalism mixed into their traditional dogma of protestant Christianity for white folks. It is only a religion in terms of "professing one's faith" because they cannot overcome their own cognitive dissonance if they go deeper into the practice of the religion since the business side of their beliefs is based on the notion that the more individuals pursue their own greed, the greater their contribution will be to society. For them, national security is simple, it's about protecting the foundation of "their" society, business and dogmatic Christianity where anything that challenges it must be wiped out en masse.

The Democrats define national security in far more complex terms based on their underlying foundation of egalitarian democracy. Religion and economics take a back seat to the more important issue of trying to lift humanity, or at least our fellow citizens, out of the pit of despair into a more enlightened and humane world. The ethical foundation of democracy is based on a more universal and transcendant spiritual mindset of the equality of our fragile and mortal existence. National security from this point-of-view is not intended to be temporary but to be more long-term and permanent in which the root causes of conflict are eliminated.

A case in point is Iraq. Saddam Hussein was perceived to be a major threat merely because he possessed chemical weapons and used them against rebels within his own country. The fact is, chemical weapons were used by all of the major powers during both world wars and by the US to a remarkable extent during the Vietnam War in the form of Agent Orange and Napalm. In fact, there were more than one chemical agents used in Vietnam (think of the names of the basic colors). Since it was probable that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Coalition forces during the first gulf war, the threat assessment strategists at the Pentagon more than likely believed that he might arm a terrorist to come to the US for retaliation against its decade-long police action enforcing an embargo.

The Republican (primarily the right-wing Neocons) point of view was that Hussein was a major POTENTIAL threat and had to be eliminated in order to protect our oil interests. This is a point of view that oil is necessary for our society to exist therefore their oil indirectly belongs to us, and if they don't like it, we'll send in our military forces (with the mindset of relying on our position as the world's sole super-power) to "pacify them" and "help them" to "see things our way."

The Democrats (primarily the left-wing liberals) point of view was that we created dictators like Hussein due to our oil politics and the best way to eliminate any potential danger that he might pose to us is to maneuver our political situation to finding an alternative energy source (oil being his source of power), so that he will no longer have any power, thus making conflict altogether unnecessary. Sort of like depriving the German Panzer Tanks of fuel during the Battle of the Bulge. In this way, the suffering on both sides can be averted. The use of the military is more of a defensive point of view in order to preserve its strength for the maximum protection of the people.

It is clear that the Republicans are relying on our military strength as the foundation of their policies. Our strength is primarily in our technological capability mixed with the ugliest weapons of all, nuclear weaponry. The policy of a smaller and leaner military would work best for a defensive strategy. The size of the military could be supplemented through citizen reserves when we are under genuine threat. However a leaner military deployed abroad for an offensive strategy is dangerous, if not foolish. The offensive strategy that the Pentagon is using in order to "pacify" the world is creating a dangerously thin military that puts our short-term national security intersts at risk. An offensive strategy causes strife that creates more enemies for the long term, thus putting our long-term national security interests at risk as well.

I think that if the Democrats backed up an alternative energy source, we could politically position the US away from oil and the politics that go with it. This would be a better way of pacifying the region since they will not be able to feel independent enough to attack us since their long-term economic viability will depend on our benevolence. In being benevolent, we would be able to foster goodwill (provided that we have the political willpower to do so), strengthen cultural bonds, and demonstrate our true strength, socially democratic egalitarian ideals. Under this more ideal point of view, the Democrats will be able to rely on a deeper more altruistic source of strength, our hope for a better humanity. This is something that cannot be attacked or destroyed (although GWB is trying hard to do so!).

[Arianrhod]

9. Excellent response.

The problem is, nobody will vote for it.

It's been mentioned a couple of times on here that one of the major flaws of the true Democratic position is that it requires an understanding of very complex issues. In a real sense, this is true. Unfortunately, not a lot of people are willing to put in the time and effort to get a good grasp of these issues. It's easier to listen to the sound bites and draw quick conclusions based on black-and-white presentations than it is to research, collate, absorb and comprehend the intricacies that are the basis of genuine reality. As a result, the conservative message sells, and the liberal one does not.

[Donna Zen]

8. Glad you asked

The Culture:

The military culture probably does not appeal to many, if any, of the Democratic left; however, the center left has no problem with the institutional structure of the military. I for one do not do well in that setting, but then I graduated in Art.

The military as an arm of the GOP is the most dangerous trend in America today.

The Financial:

In congress, the Democrats, by in large, have consistently supported the military to the same degree as the GOP. It was Bush I who began reeling in Peace dividend, and Clinton actually built it up the services with additional money. In addition, the Democrats have always been more pro-active on bills involving veterans. Weapons systems tend to result in votes that anger the defense contractors, who in turn blame the Democrats for their wrist slaps. No one running for elective office dares to be honest about the defense budget, because they have learned that we are governed and informed by sound bites. Thus the military budget, not the men and women in uniform, are awash in money without accountability. And a note to a previous poster, yes, the air force has the most money...at least that is what General Clark has said. The military budget can be cut without weakening America’s defensive posture. The military budget must be cut if we are to solve our social needs.

There is money hidden in the military budget for NASA. We are two treaties away from the militarization of space. You can take that to the bank.

The Application:

Currently the armed forces are configured for fighting the two war scenario, a plan that is out dated and is now being hastily replaced by PNAC. We are at a crossroads with one path leading to reconfiguring the military to reflect a move toward empire and the toppling of states; and the second way leading to a military that would include units designed for nation building. Now my choice is the second path. We will be confronted, as much as we may wish to stay within our borders, by failed states that threaten the stability of whole regions. The solution may not include anything that we think of as war, but rather non-lethal, multilateral intervention meant to assist in promoting governments that are more responsive to the people of those countries. Too pie in sky? Sure...but isn’t a stable world what we should be working towards?

It is very important important that Democrats change the perception of being weak on all things military. Not only does it cost of millions of votes and permit the likes of Tom Delay to work his evil, it is a threat to the very nature of a democracy. We are quickly becoming a one party state, and that party has all the guns that matter.

Over the course of the past few months my attitude has under gone a major change. Although, I’ve always had many vets as friends, I remember feeling startled when students would tell me that they were joining the military. Some of those kids are in Iraq today, and certainly that has done a number on my head. But more than that, at Clark’s blog, there are a number of military both active duty and retired who post. I just love those folks. The posts from foreign countries are hesitant and anonymous, but very well written. There was a person posting from the DMZ a few days ago who described the building that is there for the leaders from the two sides to meet in. Sadly, the person said, the room is empty.

[jiacinto]

19. But here is the problem

What are military men and women supposed to think when they see people on the left denuoncing them all as "baby killers"?

[Donna Zen]

24. Yes, I have seen that on this board

My first reaction was shock, because all along I thought the rightwing was just spinning this perception. Now we know that many people read and/or participate in this forum. Some have a relationship to the military, to see those posts must be very hurtful. But beyond personal feelings, what does a post with "baby killers" in it do to change the general weakness of the party's image?

I've lived for a time under marshall law in the US with military patrols on every corner. At the time, I was very angry. I hope I have let that go. But even if I hadn't, I would hope I would be smart enough to refrain from gross accussations.

I am not advocating censorship; I am advocating common sense. And the kids that I know who are actually caught up in this nightmare are just kids who were trying to make a good decision for their future. One was a Monty Python freak who hung with the kids that all went on to big name schools. He couldn't go because of money. One surprized me with his love of blues guitar, and would sit and play for hours in the hall. He loves a girl who is studying to be a nurse. The kid I wrote about in an earlier post is in Mosol. Someone died there today in a rocket attack.

I was against this war, but I am not against those kids.

[jiacinto]

34. You shouldn't be

They aren't the ones who made the decision go to fight.

[jiacinto]

10. A lot of it is perception

I have freinds in the military, and they are all Republicans. They think that the Democrats are "hostile" to the military and don't respect nor appreciate those who serve this country. They think that those on the left denounce them as all "baby killers". It got worse due to the Clinton presidency.

They see people on the left--especially the faar left--as offering them nothing and hating them. They think that the Democrats are all too willing to disrespect them and "spit on them". This probably harkens back to the social unrest of the late 1960s and the early 1970s over the Vietnam War. Even though the Democrats pioneered the GI Bill and other key legislation that helps those serving our country, our men and women in uniform look back at the Vietnam era and the Clinton presidency.

Then again, when I come to DU, I look at a the posts of a small minority. I've seen posts here call the Iraqi resistance "heoric". I've seen other posters proudly claim that they "don't support the troops". Or see them denounce all troops for serving. They are a small minority here, but they are loud. And I just wonder what someone serving in the military would say if s/he came here and saw these posts here at DU. It would not endear them to our party or the candidates running for elective office.

But at the same time the Republicans have been cutting VA benefits. They do a better job of the photo ops with Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood. They abuse the servicemen and put them in campaign ads while quieting backstabbing them by underfunding the VA.

What Democrats need to do is repudiate the hard left that hates the military--and they do hate the military. They also need to be more aggressive in highlightin how the GOP abuses those in uniform by cutting VA benefits and bugets. They also need to show that they respect and appreciate their service to this country.

Democrats won't ever get a significant share of the military/veterans vote. It is not going to happen. However, if we were to get 1-5% more of their votes, we would win many of the races we have been losing by that margin.

Flame away.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Methinks the military vote is up for grabs next year. . .

The Washington Monthly apparently thinks so, too. . .
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html

The WM also has some other great articles about the military. Some of them are penned by Gen. Wesley Clark, to boot. Lots of food for thought.

:kick:

[RobinA]

12. Military Vote Up for Grabs?

I seriously doubt that. I browse through a military site from time to time just to see what gets said there. Based on what I read there, most (not all) will vote for anybody with a (R) behind his name. I've seen them dismiss argument that Bush was AWOL, a rich boy who got a safe assignment because of Daddy, and unfit for service. They manage to excuse him while dissing Clinton on this issue. They applaud tax cuts and complain about every expenditure of tax dollars that isn't for the military. They don't like Clark because he's a (D) and come up with all sorts of reasons why they don't like him to justify their position. They prefer the draft dodging Bush to a four star general with cred in all kinds of areas.

I'm not anti-military and I am liberal. I think they are as narrow-minded as most other Americans, no more, no less. I believe we need a strong military, and I don't have a problem with nation-building to a certain extent. Although if we are going to nation-build, I think we need to admit it and train the military accordingly - something that does not seem to be being done now. I don't think it's the foot shoulder that most lefties hate when they say they hate the military, I think it's the order-givers in Washington. Face it, the military is not who has us in trouble in Iraq.

[jiacinto]

17. See it from their point of view

How do think they should react when they see people on the far left denouncing them all as "baby killers"? Or when all too many on the far left scream that they "don't support the troops"?

[RobinA]

26. I Hope For

(but don't expect) the same thing I hope for (but don't expect) from everybody. That they look at the issues apart from the emotional rhetoric. The military sometimes deserves the rhetoric against it, just as the left sometimes does. I'm willing to admit when the right has a point about the excesses of many people in my camp, I would hope that those in the military would do the same. My hopes are seldom realized, but I try very hard not to make the same mistakes myself.

[Redleg]

28. I don't believe there is a "military vote."

The military is not a homogenous, right-wing institution. I believe we do a disservice to refer to any group of people as a homogenous group all having the same values, motivations, etc. For example, I detest the term "the Black community" because it lumps all Black Americans together. It is patronizing and contributes to stereotyping.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Great Posts

Much to think about and react to. The structure and use, to an extent even the reality of a Military presents a very complex set of issues and emotions to Leftists in particular, and to the Democratic Party in a more diffuse but very real sense. Our divided responses toweards the Military is often the unspoken Elephant (parden the pun) in the Democrat's "Big Tent" living room. While leftists do not make up a majority of the Democratic Party, we are disproportionally represented in its activist base, outside of the South at least. Leftist defections to the Green and/or other more radical groupings over "security issues" has and can still cost the Democrats national elections. But so has, and can still, distorted "red baiting" of our Party's positions on the military and national security cost us national elections. Ever since the Viet Nam War, even before the proliferation of the current "family value" cultural wars, the military had become the "Mother of All Republican Party Wedge Issues" in my opinion.

I agree with what Donna said above (I agree with a lot of the things said by everyone above) about the emergence of the issue of "failed states" as a security threat to American lives in an era of global terrorism. I also believe 9/11 has changed something more fundamental than just perceptions and fears. There now are organized forces attempting to inflct large civilian casualties on the American public, and they won't stop anytime soon. I don't think the lack of a strong military CAUSED 9/11, much more the opposite of course. I don't think attacking nations like Iraq or Iran, lessens the threat of terrorism against Americans, it INCREASES it. I don't think overall American foreign policy since 1980, especially during those years when the Republicans have occupied the White House, has made America safer against the threat of terrorism, it has overall contributed to the causes of it (I won't comment now on security issues relative to the Cold War, that's its own tangent.) But where does all that leave us now?

I find it more than ironic that after resisting it tooth and nail under Clinton, the Republicans are now embarked on the most ambitious Nation Building quests since the aftermath of World War II. Twice as a matter of fact. The first time in Afghanistan, with some strong justification and significant International support (Both NATO and the UN are deeply involved in efforts to stabalize and rebuild Afghanistan). The second in Iraq with false justifications and a deafening lack of International support. In Iraq Bush took a contained totalitarian state and quickly transformed it into a massively failed state ripe for terrorist organizing and activity, and now we are bogged down trying to "rebuild Iraq". Does that repudiate the use of the American military in nation building efforts? Personally I don't think so. Failed nations such as Afghanistan in the 90's up through 9/11 present a real threat. The reprocussions of thousands of extremists having been trained in terror camps openly operated within Afghanistans borders for years following their own Civil War, are still being felt and will be for at least a decade I suspect.

In a nut shell I think the huge contemporary underlying divide seperating the legitimate use of American military force and the dangerous, national security undermining use of American military force, is the question of International legitimacy. I think that is the theme the Democratic Party needs to delineate. It will fly directly in the face of a fierce Rupublican Right counter attack, about surrendering U.S. sovereignty, about allowing the French to dictate U.S. foreign policy, about the stupidity of running wars by committee etc. etc. but that is where the real debate lies, I think.

Another quick thought, which I wrote about extensively on another thread. That is Civilian control of the military. We take it for granted but it is not that way in much if not most of the world. Civilian control means that the military doesn't get to decide when where and how they use their weapons, ultimately the Commander in Chief does. Since the military has most of the guns, if there wasn't a strong traditin of civilian control in this nation, you and I would have little real say in anything. But people have a tendency to blame the messenger. If we strongly oppose a specific use of the Armed Forces, we tend to project negative feelings onto the people who are actively directing the use of those Armed Forces. We tend not only to dislike, distrust, and oppose the President setting the policy, but also to dislike, distrust, and oppose the military leaders (and sometimes soldiers) implementing the policy. From many many sources, some personal, that I believe is the message taken to heart by many of the men and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces. How many of us truly believe that a life time career in the military is a highly honorable career choice?

The fact that a big deal is still made, or at the very least the fact that some think a big deal can still be made, over what our candidates did or did not do during the Viet Nam War is evidence that there are still raw nerves and open wounds which the Republicans have historically been adept at exploiting. They have mastered the political art of consolidating their base, and swaying just enough of the undecided to join their camp during an election. The Republicans by and large could care less about how angry they make the Democratic Party base in the process, if it contributes to polarization that works to their advantage. If possible they attempt to make us "over react" in a way they can later distort and use against us with the dwindling middle. The Republican Party intentionally tries to polarize the nation because they believe they have perfected the propaganda formulars by which they can consistently end up with ever the slightest larger half of the pie, and they are not reluctant to govern without a mandate. They grab for the flag for a reason, hoping we can be blamed for ripping it in the ensuing struggle.

[randr]

14. The image of the left

following Vietnam was painted as anti military. Neither the antiwar crowd nor the democrates has ever challenged this perception. In fact the democrates never declared which side they were on. Until Iraq.
Now that the lines between the hawks and doves are becomeing clearer, and they parties have separated on this issue, it is time for the democratic party to define clearly what their relationship is to the defense of our country. An open and frank discussion of war and it's consequencies is needed
I would hope that one or more of the current presidential candidates would initiate this.
Personally I would hope we could collectively declare that:
The taking of human lives is immoral!
War is an act of barbarism and to be avoided by all means.
A clear and present danger must exist before considering a declaration of war.
The decision to use troops to defend our country carries the heaviest weight of responsibilty of all of our human persuits.
These decisions must require a clear set of circumstances and the intelligence to distinquish fact from fiction.
These decisions are to made by the Legislative body of our nation as dictated by our Constitution. The current situation, where the congress has given the executive office the authority, is unconstitutional.
To ever send troops into combat without this forethought should be considered treasonous.
The people who serve in our armed forces should know that all diplomatic efforts have exhausted themselves before they are required to intervene.
The soldiers performing these duties should be held in the highest regard. The care of them in the combat zone as well as in their return to country and family should refect this respect.
The military personel must be shown that the efforts to end unnecessary conflicts are in their interests. They are asked to perform a sacred duty and they must be assured that the people making this decision are acting in the country's interest and not in the interest of any corporate power or ideology.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I am so conditioned to the Republican use of "buzz words"

that at first I almost assumed that the position you were staking out was perhaps "left" or more "anti-military" than mine, but it isn't at all. I absolutely agree with everyting you said. WE have lost the public relations battles, and the world is a more dangerous place as a result.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. I think us Liberals drive off a lot of people because we attack anybody

that's not "pure" enough. If you don't have 100% pure "Liberal" views you're no good - no better tahn a Republcians and to hell with you.

If a Congressman voted for ONE bill the way we didn't want him to - the hell with him. It doesn't matter if he voted the right way 99% of the time. That's not enough for us. We're not going to vote for him and we'll either stay home OR vote for somebody from a third party.

[jiacinto]

18. Think of it this way

If I showed some folks in the armed forces what gets posted here at DU only a daily basis about them--the posts that call them "baby killers" and that urge people to "support the Iraqi resistance--what impression would you expect them to have of the Democratic Party?

Here's a hint: it wouldn't be a positive one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I think you made that point

Obviously those statements would not go over well with someone in the military, and no doubt there are those who will generalize from those statements to claim that all Democrats hate the military, but I don't think that by istself is a huge issue. Those are clearly minority voices who will go that far in their statements, even for the Left. The political Far Right has some voices calling for the overthrow of the Federal Government and praisiing the Oklahoma City Bombing also.

I am more concerned about the perception of a less shrill and more wide spread anti military bias and/or whatever fear it is that makes so much of the American Public more comfortable having foreign policy and national security directed by the Republicans (as in having a Republican President) than the Democrats.

[jiacinto]

21. My answer to that point

The problem is that the Republicans are better at public relations and message than the Democrats are. They are more able to articulate their agenda into more concise soundbites that average people can understand.

[RobinA]

27. But....

you will find just as much mindless idiocy on military sites. The job of everyone is to fight close-mindedness wherever. It isn't excusable no matter where it comes from. And "He's close-minded so I get to be close-minded," is just not an argument.

[lostnfound]

22. We don't have the right words.

The values which call people to serve in the military, and the character and skills which are developed there, are often very noble.

The post by randr was right on.

We on the left are in an impossible trap. When we talk about the danger of the 'military-industrial complex' or admit to being 'anti-war', the immediate assumption is that we are 'anti-warrior'. 99% of us anti-war types should more accurately be called "anti-offensive-war".

Here's a parallel that has stuck in my mind lately:
Military is to its civilian leadership as:
an honorable woman is to her abusive spouse.

I apologize to anyone who might be offended by that comment, but the point is that over and over again in our history, the civilian leadership has sent the young of its citizenry off to suffer and sometimes die in conflicts all over the planet, generally failing to recognize what a true treasure it had been entrusted with.

It is up to us to change the nature of the philandering and abusive civilian leadership to which these young people dedicate their lives. But as for my own son or daughter, I would hope that they will find a worthy partner for marriage.

[peacetalksforall]

23. I deplore the emphasis on killing and I probably can say I despise the

brass who appear to be solidly in lock-step with the Republican Party rulers and Republican corporate executives who have an agenda that makes the protection of America a grand farce and lie. They are in the money making game and they love the concept of killing and winning and they like to do it with money making toys. I believe they want wars to test new theories and big boy toys in addition to taking over and controlling the earth. I hold disdain for a section of our populace who lives for war and killing. I believe they attempt along with the intelligence agencies to create war and they NEVER get it right.

This country will only be great - ONLY - when we have a peace keeping Secretariat and more money going into negotiation training and honorable, not hypocritical, intentions towards other people on the earth - and only if the riches of the land other people live on are allowed to be kept by them for their own benefits, never for exploitation by and riches for those with the bigger toys and grander visions of death and disregard of deaths and dismemberments.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. This has been a flame free thoughtful thread

with questions worth thinking about. Care to contribute? kick

[nomaco-10]

29. My view of the military has changed....

I used to have nothing but the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, but I have seen and read too many troubling accounts of their actions as of late that I have found deeply disturbing.

What little footage I've been allowed to see out of Baghdad has been disturbing, indeed. On a PBS documentary, I saw several American soldiers wound and fall an Iraqi in the streets of Baghdad, then pump bullets into his lifeless body, all the time laughing and cheering while the bullets riddled his already lifeless body. On another PBS show, I saw several soldiers confiscate a car from an Iraqi citizen because he was a suspected looter, he had a few boards he had taken from a bombed out, abandoned building and had tied on top of the roof his small, compact car, the soldiers used the car for target practice and then used an Abrams tank to run over it and smash it into the ground, all the time laughing and cheering. It turns out this man was a taxi driver in Baghdad and his car was his livlihood.

I've also seen a few clips of the soldiers being quite rough in their encounters with Iraqi women, pushing, shoving and shouting at them.

You've got officers shooting off rounds near a prisoner's head to extract information about possible attacks, clearly a violation of the Geneva Convention. You've got a General spouting rightwing, fundamental religous rhetoric while in uniform and on active duty. You've got young Americans at camp X-Ray, whose only crime was to treat the prisoners there with some kind of dignity and compassion being charged with espionage and branded as traitors, then sent to the brig to rot for months on end witout legal representation, and when they are declared innocent of the charges of espionage, are then slapped with the ridiculous charges of Adultery and downloading Pornography off the internet.

The type of behaviour I've described could only flourish in the military under the sanctions of this administration. Since, we are not allowed to see what's really going on in Iraq, I suspect the few incidents I described are only the tip of the iceberg.

I think the military feels both emboldened and encouraged under a cloud of "blackout" news coverage by the bush* team. If you don't think we're living in some of the darkest days this country has ever experienced, you're just not looking close enough.

[peacetalksforall]

30. I would never criticize the enlistees and draftees

unless I knew that they had succumbed to destruction of self esteem as with the women in the story above or in the destruction of a person's livelihood as in the story above or in the disregard for another person's humanity and right to basics in life and the opportunity to rise up.

What are our youth military succumbing to? Their leadership in the military and their peers. Some of those young people brought with them, on their plane or ship and in their packs, prejudices against other people on this earth and a huge reservoir of fear. Fear in many forms.

They also brought the successess of propaganda that ignorant people have embraced - that we are the superior country on this earth. If you believe you are superior, then any behavior is appropriate if it isn't quite covered in training or appears to be condoned by your leader and peers or if you are not mature or if you tend to want to get away with joke behavior.

We are a country full of barbaric people who think we are superior because we were told we were. We have been fed brown stuff for decades. Our leadership stems from technology and a certain amount of freedoms for SOME in this country. We continue to ignore our killing and takeover history. We are a living lie - a brazen lie. We have the opportunity to have a Secretary of Peace and to practice what we preach and try to export. We don't. Our leaders are takeover specialists. They are the ones who suffer from the greater fear.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Reality Bites....

If the Republicans are able to successfully define the Democrats as weak on defense we'll lose in 2004 and we'll loose big...


Facts are stubborn things....

[peacetalksforall]

32. It's a dilemna

We are losing our country to our own. What do you do - shut up? We have seen what happens when our Democratic leaders are afraid of loosing votes - they approve of the takeovers with their votes - vote by vote by vote. And they don't say anything about any military crimes. The military brass-intelligence-corporate-foundation-banking-religious-supremist-exploitationists people are winning. We have to speak. It's supposed to be our country. Some in it are blind with concocted patriotism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. If I had been President (that's a laught)

I would have ordered troops into Rwanda, and I believe they would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. What do you think about that?

[peacetalksforall]

36. This is a typical right wing type deflection

to go to Africa when the war du jour is in Mesopotamia and bringing up the 1990's in which the military who with regreattable Presidential approval was trying to win wars from the air by bombing - who are you going to bomb in Rwanda? Did you want to put troops on land?

This appears to be a cut at Clinton - so who are you? And why are you coming off so neutral and investigative, then passing a dig?

Lets bring up Sherman next, right?

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Where's the dig?

Yes I think Clinton made a mistake not getting involved in Rwanda. Clinton also thinks he made a mistake not getting involved in Rwanda. He directly apologized for that during a state visit to Africa later in his Presidency. Madeleine Albright is reported to consider it to be her biggest mistake as Secretary of State not to have pushed for U.S. intervention in Rwanda. So I don't think I'm making any digs.

I wanted the U.S. to put troops on land. The murder was being done by the equivelent of right wing death squads, they just had to be confronted and sanctuaries established where civilians would be safe. I don't think it would have required much of a show of force to reverse that genocide. Bombing would have been stupid and unnecesary, certainly high altitude bombing would have been. I guess planes flying low to attack concentrations of "soldiers" attempting to burn down churches with hundreds of civilians huddled inside might have been called for.

I don't think the U.S. should have acted unilaterally in Rwanda either, that was never an option anyone was suggesting. The United Nations was urgently trying to pull together a peace keeping force to intervene, and the U.S. kept dragging its feet about being involved in one.

As for bringing up Africa "when the war du jour is in Mesopotamia", where did I say in the opening post anything about restricting this thread to a discussion of the war in Iraq, or the crisis in the Mid East? I didn't. Is there a DU rule against having a broader context to a thematic discussion about the role of the military and our attitudes toward it, other than focusing exclusively on the most immediate conflict? I brought up Rwanda because in my mind it is a good real world example of the potential use of military force for humanitarian purposes. Reread my opening post and you will see that this is an aspect of this topic that I said I was interested in discussing.

Why the implied personal hostility towards me, eh? Around here labling something a right wing type deflection, followed by saying "who are you?" isn't exactly friendly behavior. Who are you? Who are the vast majority of posters who each at one time show up for the first time here at DU? I made no effort to "come off so nuetral and investigative" beyond the fact that I didn't start this thread with any axe to grind. I have opinions, so do you it seems. Good, it would be frightening if we didn't. I even stated a few of them so far on this thread, and I have stated others elsewhere. But I haven't been pushing opinions here because I honestly was more interested in reading what others had to say on this subject.

I am not a pacifist. Does that make me right wing? I also think it was regrettable that the U.S. was trying to win wars strictly from the air, by the way. That strategy, while minimizing u.S. military casualties, places civilians in or near a war zone at far greater risk. I think - this is my opinion, OK? Remember, we both get to have opinions - that Clinton became so averse to taking military casualties after the public response to what happened in Somalia with "Black Hawk down", that high altitude bombing and cruise missile attacks were the only use of force he would consider.

[peacetalksforall]

38. Everything you are asking and saying involves a diplomatic,

economic, and political answer - it's just not military. Ours is a warring nation. We are excellent at war, sadly. We are hysterical about anyone who doesn't like us or worship us. We are not excellent at peace - we are at war with peacemakers and peace demonstrators because it is not in our psyche and we love the riches and games of war. We need to recognize sovereign nations. We were not placed here to rule other people and we can never unilaterally go in and impose our military might on any sovereign nation. Oh to be on top for a century or so, then have leadership with so disastrous an economic plan that it will place us near the bottom at any time. Then, it's rentable killing and weapons at auction.

Our leadership coalition in this country goes for short term goals of profits and control. No one looks at why we are on this earth and how we can improve mankind.

I should not have asked who are you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. That was a good post.

Thank you. I suspect we don't agree completely but are a lot closer in thinking than you might suspect. One reason I started this thread is because, to over simplify for a second, I had always been a strong anti war Democrat untill Bosnia exploded and the rape and death camps started there. I appreciate your last comment, and in a friendlier context I have no trouble telling you more about who I am. I think activists should stand behind their opinions. That's why I choose to use my real name here for example. My first anti war demonstration was surrounding the Pentagon in 1967, and there have been many more over subsequent decades. I'll leave it there for the moment because I don't want to make this into a personal thread.

I certainly will agree that diplomatic, economic, and political answers to the problems that exist in the world are the only real answers that can move humanity forward towards a just and peaceful world, and a just and peaceful world is the one I want to fight for. I guess the possible sticking point between us is a concession I have come to make, that in rare instances military force may be needed to keep us from slipping backwards towards a world where brute force is left unchecked to impose its will on those incapable of resisting it. About 25 years ago I met some surviving members of the Lincoln brigade who volunteeered to fight against Franco's fascist overthrow of the Spanish Republic in the 1930's. I felt honored to meet them.