Of love, the left and the U.S. military

I'm curious to read your opinions of this piece.

http://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/031202military.shtml


I never understood the military, or gave it much thought. Throughout college, I was all but oblivious to operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, let alone other regions.

/snip/

But on the whole, my attitude toward the military could be summed up by the bumper sticker: "It will be a great day when our schools have enough books, and the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a tank."

All that held true - until I fell in love with an Army officer.

I work for a liberal Democratic congressman. I buy organic, cage-free eggs. My parents' purchase of an SUV gave me a queasy stomach for days. I marched in tear-gas suffused protests against corporate globalization in 2000 and against the coming war with Iraq in January 2003.

I have never understood why so many people who are politically left of center have such fear and suspicion of people in the armed forces. I think if more of them were personally acquainted with people who are career officers, especially those who attended the service academies, that they would soon find that the typical career military officer has a better knowlegde of American law and history, is more aware of exactly what freedoms he or she has sworn to defend, and is more informed on current political issues than most Americans, including those who are themselves well-educated.

We're probably all aware that Wesley Clark - a West Point graduate - has spoken repeatedly of the importance of exercising the right of dissent, especially in wartime. In contrast, Tommy Franks - a graduate of the University of Texas at Arlington - recently said he thinks that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will be scrapped in favor of military government (over my dead body, I might add). I have many friends who are current or former military officers, and none of us could comprehend Franks' asinine remark, and none of us could imagine a graduate of West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy, all of whom are sworn to defending the Constitution, and most of whom truly venerate the idea of civilian control of the military - saying something like that.

P.S. - I am not a veteran. Just offering my own view based on personal experience, and my own reading of American history, which leads me to believe that George C. Marshall and Wesley Clark are a lot more typical than, say, Curtis LeMay or even General Franks (a man whose integrity I do not mean to impugn, but whose judgment I feel inclined to question....)

in the past (and present too) to reach out to military folk. I'm thinking specifically about the anti-Vietnam war G.I. coffeehouses that activists set up in the envirens of military bases, mainly prior to 1967, if I remember the history correctly--way before my time.

Vets groups like Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Vets Against the War (and Citizen Soldier, if it is still around) try to present a more sophisticated analysis of issues revolving around military service; e.g., why people join, defending soldier's rights within and outside the command structure, etc.

I am the child of a peace loving mother dedicated to the principles of non-violent civil disobedience and the product of the influences of three fathers, all with different degrees of military service. Multitudes of relationships bridge the military/ civilian bridge. It is nice to see one so thoughtfully and eloquently portrayed.

Let us all not forget that the military is staffed with we the civilians. It's not like we are breeding soldiers and raising them seperately from our society as a whole. As recently as last month in Georgia, it was the military and law enforcement that supported the "velvet revolution" of the people where the president stepped down and NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED. Wow, nobody had to die and the soldiers were not blood thirsty hard core supporters of an unjust leader.

This is us in uniform and we are placed in situations that are considered profoundly life changing when we send ourselves into battle. Military indoctrination and service stays with you for all your living days. There is no such thing as a return to normal life after combat duty. I am pretty sure our nation knows the undocumented cost of sending a generation to war, in particular through the draft. The indoctrination is necessary in order to have troops that are likely to survive. While some habits such as neatness and respect are positive aspect of military training, they are far outweighed by the mental anguish non volunteers (in particular) are subject to. We should be arguing if the active combat service is necessary every step of the way. Since the indoctrination prevents all but officers to questions strategy etc, it is the duty of the citizens to question whether war is our only option.

Truly the biggest gap I see in our society is between the politicians and the rest of we the civilians (including our troops). In order to serve in national politics, you must be able to raise or have access to tremendous wealth and influence. Chances are you eat meals valued at over $100 a plate on a regular basis. Somebody else shines your shoes. You have no concern personally about health care costs (free to Congress), foreclosure, lay offs, or making ends meet at home. And you are leader of a staff that supports whatever you want to do. It seems that the vast number of our democratic representatives are mainly concerned with staying in power by generating funds and kissing ass. The world of our politicians is so far removed from the citizens it is almost impossible to bridge the gap. Rarely in my lifetime have I felt represented in Congress or the White House, and usually not for very long.

I wonder if the author of this article could reconcile marrying a young freshly indoctrinated soldier serving in Iraq. Seems to me our hope lies in those older soldiers serving in command that have seen their fellow citizens fall and know the total cost of war, not feeding fresh bodies into our military machine.

Peace,
Teresa
www.votervirgin.com

1. The left doesn't demonize soldiers, these people include our grandchildren, children, sisters, brothers, parents, aunts, uncles, and remarkably even our grandparents. Like the woman and her flame in the pentagon we know their humanity and love them above the policies they enforce.

The left is wary of the military as an institution. This isn't a useless leftist angst beneath the veneer of love we hold for our service people.

The nation needs at least some of its population to ALWAYS be wary of the military. Especially in a time when military might is used to justify unprecedented American unilateralism in global affairs.

An America that depends on the military as a raison d'etre for it pre-eminence is an America that is willing to spend record amounts on the logistics of war while ignoring domestic social responsibilities.

I'm a liberal, I am a veteran and I disdain the use of the military as my nation's primary tool of foreign policy.

Yes, I hold the military machine suspect.

Tools that could establish and maintain tyranny must always be treated with exceeding care and circumspection.

My anxieties are buttressed by what's coming out of the military institution:

General Franks suggestion that martial law is the inevitable future of the nation in the face of more terrorist attacks

and the pursuit of military control of foreign policy as envisioned and attempted by the current Secretary of Defense.

2. I don't believe the "war on terrorism" is going to have a traditional military victory so I don't accept that the Left's relationship to the military will be linked temporally to the pursuit of Al-Qaeda.

Rather, into the foreseeable future the United States will need the capacity to protect its sovreign interests.

However, our capacity to project conventional and nonconventional force against other nation states exceeds our need for that particular purpose. It is simply excessive.

It cripples our ability to address other social needs (including the tax relief so dear to every American).

Most seriously, our global military hegemony tempts people like the neo-conservatives to beg for the use of that power to impose on foreign lands policies of American global control that are in an historic sense, frankly, unAmerican.

Then we wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq, and we damn sure wouldn't be planning to overtake Syria either.

It's not the personel who we are set against, it's the elites who pull the military strings with which we have a quarrel. Also, it's the mindset of a seemingly majority population which feels the ever expansive need to be able to destroy anybody that gets in our way.

I see the military as a pseudo corporation. A corporation whose intent is to eventually take over the world. Such has always been the case with militaries; only money has been the limiting factor. Our current military has more money than they ever had and that fact will ensure that their intent to own the rest of the world only grows in power.

We absolutely must reduce the size of our military budget. Anything else is a Pandora's box.

Such excellent thoughts. Thank you.

My initial issue with this writer was her stereotyping liberals -- the one thing that she's accusing liberals of doing with the military.

My husband is a veteran AND a liberal. They're not mutually exclusive.

Thanks again for the tremendous thoughts you've all added.

I thought it was a very good essay and expressed some things that needed to be said. However, the author ascribed her preconceptions about the military to liberals in general. No doubt many from the left misunderstand and fear the military, but many of us can differentiate between the people who serve in the military and the power elite who send them on questionable missions.

Even worse is the overall public perception that the the political left is anti-military and not to be trusted in matters of national security. This perception may be partly due to the pacifism that is more prevalent on the left, but I think it is even more the result of propaganda by the power elite on the right who seek to control and wield this awesome military power.

This power is being abused by those who seek to enrich themselves and their corporate backers, and also by an ideologically radical group of neoconservatives who believe the United States can and should achieve world domination through military power. This is a dangerous and delusional ambition that puts our future security at risk. Such an agenda is unsustainable, and criminal.

Our task is to present ourselves as better shepherds of national security, and the better friend of the military. Many servicepeople are beginning to realize that the Bush administration is squandering their lives in a mission that was unnecessary and predicated on lies and hidden agenda. The facts are on our side, and if we are intelligent and responsible, the military will be on our side as well.