Soldiers Can Be Liberal (CLARK)

The candidacy of Gen. Wesley Clark for president has touched off a nasty debate inside the Democratic Party. Not the one over whether he's really a Democrat -- that's so absurd it's hardly worth debating. The debate I'm talking about is over whether a warrior should lead the party at all.

I say yes, and not just because the Democrats need credibility on national security issues in order to beat George W. Bush next year. To me, the U.S. military represents some of the best values of the party: advancement without advantage, patriotism, multilateralism, shared sacrifice and diversity.

<...>

You'd think progressives would embrace those things, yet some on the left seem to have a reflexive suspicion of the military and a sense that because it is an instrument of war, the people in it are necessarily warmongers.

<...>

But is the kid who's learning to be a technician, engineer or pilot in the services a warmonger? Are the underpaid, exhausted men and women in uniform responsible for the wars they prosecute? Of course not. And neither are the generals. War is the burden of soldiers, but the responsibility of civilian society. That's us.

<...>

As for Kosovo, which has become the cause of many who oppose Clark: I can live with a war to stop ongoing genocide. It's the ones to knock off tin-pot dictators for 20-year-old genocide, phony ties to Sept. 11 and phantom weapons of mass destruction that this progressive has a problem with.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6892555.htm

If you could honestly and anonymously poll the soldiers in Iraq, I bet 75% would want the occupation to end.

If Saddam is a monster - then he is a monster of OUR making. We know he HAD WMD because we kept the receipts.

The writer is absolutely right. The people who start the wars are the civilians in charge of the military. The responsibility rests on them for the most part.

However, a large part of the responsibility also rests on the shoulders of the American people who let them get away with it and supported it. The information was out there. We knew it. It didn't take much work to find out what the real motivations were. The mainstream media shares the blame as well.

The people in the military are only doing their job. In fact many of the people in the military advised against the war in Iraq, as did the people in the CIA. They were ignored at every turn.

I would feel much safer with a President Clark running things than the resident BushCo.

First off, I am a junior officer in the US Army Reserve. Secondly, I am probably as far outside of the political spectrum as one can get -- I'm not left, center or right, I'm just out of the scale altogether. Thirdly, I have been a conscientious objector applicant for approximately the past year.

While I have applied for a CO discharge, I will be the first person to admit that my time in the Army has taught me some wonderful things. First and foremost, it refined in me the people skills to be an effective leader. It's something you have to learn pretty quickly when you're 23 years old and in charge of a platoon of 30 people. Secondly, it is an environment in which you are forced to work with people who hail from vastly different backgrounds compared to your own -- and to work together as one team. Thirdly, the values that the military instills in people are positive ones. In the Army, we have a core set of values -- Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage (LDRSHIP) -- that EVERYONE is expected to adopt into the core of their being.

That being said, it is also important to remember the role of the military in our society. We live in a culture in which we, as only 4% of the world's population, consume 25% of the world's resources. This is what George H.W. Bush referred to as "The American Way of Life," and it is, in his words, "non-negotiable." Maintaining such a disproportionate (and wasteful) consumption of the earth's resources requires a military capable of projecting power anywhere on the globe -- and a willingness to use it. In order to fulfill this purpose, the role of the military is to train killers. While it may only be the specific role of those in the combat arms to actually physically kill other human beings in combat, the fact remains that all of the other people in the armed forces -- whether they be mechanics, administrators, cooks, whatever -- are there for the sole purpose of SUPPORTING the ability of the combat arms troops to kill.

I'm an Army Engineer. It's not my primary role to kill in combat -- although it's a distinct possibility. But I also came to the conclusion, based on my moral and religious beliefs, that I could not, in good conscience, assist in the mass slaughter of other human beings. Seeing all others as part of the same "divine spark", how on earth could I act in ways to extinguish that spark? I would be extinguishing that spark in myself in the process.

I'm not discounting the positive PERSONAL values that are taught in the military. But the fact remains that the role of the military is to kill -- PERIOD. There just has to be a better way of teaching these values than inside an institution that must succeed in debasing humanity so completely in order to achieve its stated purpose. We must find a way to instill these noble values without glorifying the killing machine that the military truly is.

This isn't a knock on Clark, just a general disagreement with the incomplete premise of the article.

thats why we love ya ;->

I hear what you are saying as far as wanting to find other institutions in our society that we can say instills/fosters those 'LEADERSHIP' values in everyone that the military is forced to deal with.

I think this is the perfect time in our history to once again reafirm our commitment to the public welfare and intiate programs publicly funded to provide jobs and edu opprotunities on the home front.

wonder how the general feels about that? he's gonna need an economic policy anyways and it could be one of hope and promise :shrug:

shoot we ate it up when clinton was sell'n it ;->

peace

While the military (especially those in it) should not be vilified, we need to stop glorifying it and recognize it for what it is -- an organization whose sole purpose is causing death and destruction in combat.

Only when we are able to shift our perceptions, as a society, toward recognizing this fact, will we be able to truly emphasize other, peaceful means of developing the positive values that the military provides within its ranks.

and it is certainly TRUE that there is both good and bad about our military and i agree that it's evil trumps its positives by leaps and bounds but that is an ooooooooold story and true of most militaries throughout history. blamming/focusing on the soilder will solve nothing since they are trained to follow orders and at the end of their day there will be no one left to blame/focus on.

the leaders deserve all the focus/blame

hopefully he may be a leader that understands that principal :shrug:

but getting back to a fiscal policy... that transferance of 'LEADERSHIP' values 'message' may be a good one to pitch :shrug:

peace

Warfare is evil, but sometimes a war shows up at a nation's doorstep that has to be fought. Today we still benefit from the sacrifices of those who fought the Revolution, World War II, and saved the Union in the Civil War. Lumping all things "military" into the "evil" category is a slander on those soldiers.

Please read my initial response to this thread, above. I'm not going to say more, because in responding to your accusations of "slander", I might become a bit more harsh than I would like.

ON EDIT: Adding link to mentioned post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=437839&mesg_id=438078&page=

http://www.clark04.com/whitepapers/01/
And, BTW, how's your friend Milosevic doing these days?

but I see military as a necessity for defense as well, even though it is often used for imperialistic goals.

All of the men in my family have been Air Force guys, and except for my Republican Dad -who if he were alive would have hated little Bush and liked Clark - they are Progressives.

Only my Dad was in combat in WWII.

You are right, this article IS incomplete, but it focuses on some of the good things that can come from military.
And that was the intent of the article aimed at Progressives, to point these things out.

DemEx


edited for spelling....

but I see military as a necessity for defense as well, even though it is often used for imperialistic goals.

Your father was a participant in the only combat operations in our nation's history, outside of the Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War, that were not "imperialistic." Please note that I am not stating that a military will not be needed for defense of the nation's borders, but I am instead saying that it should not be glorified, because that is one of the factors that leads to support of imperialistic fancies on the part of the general public.

Hell, even Switzerland has a military -- but it hasn't been outside of its borders in hundreds of years. Nor is the military glorified within their culture as it is here.

Finally, you are correct in the THRUST of the article. I just am wary that progressives should not get caught up in the glorification of the military. Because that glorification, as I said above, leads people to support pursuit of imperialistic fancy. Rather, it's probably more important to try and get society to realize the views of someone like Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC), a 2-time MOH recipient, who likened his military service to being "a gangster for capitalism" and came to denounce everything that the military was used for during his 30+ years in service.

since the tendency is to vilify it, at least here....

I see Clark as a distinguished retired general, a leader, intellectual, liberal, and 'nice' guy.

I trust that he would NOT use the military for imperialistic purposes - that is one thing that attracts me most about him, along with his international experience.

BTW - an article of your preferred slant needs to be spread among conservative audiences - I agree with you on that! :-)

:kick:

DemEx

BTW - an article of your preferred slant needs to be spread among conservative audiences - I agree with you on that!

I don't understand what article and slant you're referring to here. Are you talking about Smedley Butler?

And while I don't think that the military should be glorified, it should not be vilified, either. What SHOULD be glorified is the respect for mutual human existence, because only THAT will enable us to reject the self-defeating mantra of selfishness and militarism.

I trust that he would NOT use the military for imperialistic purposes - that is one thing that attracts me most about him, along with his international experience.

He doesn't have a choice in the matter. The mere continuation of the "American way of life" necessitates that the military be used for imperialistic purposes, whether through direct intervention or proxy. This cycle will not be ended until we change our perspectives enough to properly reject the "American way of life" (meaning mindless consumerism and selfishness) as the march toward destruction that it truly is.

but perhaps an intelligent insider like Clark can find ways to use
the military more with discretion and for more honorable, peace-enhancing activity WHILE we all change the American Way perspectives....:D.....

(PS I was referring to an article like Butler's being spread to conservative readers.....:-))

DemEx

As to your first statement, I'd still emphasize the "WE" part as opposed to what Clark may do. The unfortunate reality is that when it comes to how any real contender for the Presidency would use the military-industrial complex, the argument is really over slight differences in shades of gray rather than black/white.

This is as "Fair and Balanced" as Fox is wacko. God love you and best of luck in all of your endeavors.

I'm just trying to call 'em as I've come to see 'em. And I'm already pretty certain on the idea of "God's love", or I wouldn't be taking this path in the first place. ;-)

Peace.

He makes a very good case for himself here and certainly sounds like a quality ABB canidate and I will vote for him with a smile on my face if he gets the nod ;->

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

!

I've seen comment after comment from the repressive right, trying to puzzle out how a military man could possibly be a Democrat. I think it's driven more than one of them barking mad (not that it took so very much of a nudge).

I don't hold a brief for Clark or any other candidate at this point, but it's amusing to me to watch the "morans" try to fit a military uniform on a Democrat and see their little two-watt brains go to overload.

:)

I don't hang out at those sites, so didn't see that. But just the thought of them running in circles barking makes me smile :)

Clinton ordered bombings and invasions too, plenty if I recall. JFK started Vietnam. It's rather hypocritical to blame the soldiers while hero-worshipping the civilian leaders that give the orders.

And please don't complain about war in the middle east as you're filling up the tank on your SUV.

It was his administration that refused to entertain Ho Chi Minh's pleas for an independent state, and began funding the French in maintaining a colonial presence there. Every President thereafter expanded our role in that utter disaster.

of course it's possible. I wasnt a friggen right winger when I was active duty.

Only two weeks ago Clark was making it clear he wasn't a typical Democrat:

Clark portrayed himself as a different kind of Democrat, one without strong partisan impulses. He said he "probably" voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and backed Ronald Reagan. He did not start considering himself a Democrat until 1992, when he backed fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. "He moved me," Clark said. "I didn't consider it party, I considered I was voting for the man." Clark said the country "will not function well" with one party controlling the White House and Congress.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003
http://issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Principles_+_Values.htm

"one without strong partisan impulses"? Does that mean he doesn't really support the Democratic Party? Well it seems so, because he goes on to say "I didn't consider it party, I considered I was voting for the man." That's right, he wasn't voting for the PARTY he was voting for the MAN.

So why should the PARTY vote for him? We know next to nothing about him except for quotes (sometimes contradictory) that SEEM to support the same things we do, but it still sticks in my mind that ONLY TWO WEEKS AGO this guy seemed rather ambivalent about the Democratic Party itself.

And yet DUers should not be able to question whether he is a Dem or not?

Vote NO on the new rules!

After all, the Democratic party has long stood for segregation - we're the "White Man's Party"

Wait, you mean we don't anymore? That's right, the two parties don't stand for *anything* except for what the people in the party want at this specific time.

Why don't we bring in Clark and some military guys and some working class white males? Let's try to rebuild the FDR coalition.

"Look we NEED to invade Syria, Iran, etc etc or we risk losing our control over the worlds dwindling resources. The Dems just don't understand that our nation NEEDS these things" and Clark who is NOT really a Dem could say "Yes, you're right, we can worry about being liberal once our future is secured, and screw the rest of the world".

Will he? Who knows. He sure hasn't got a record to show that he would ignore the calls of PNAC, after all he is friends with most of them.

Refering to what Dems used to be is a red herring. We are talking about what the Dems are RIGHT NOW, and Clark doesn't seem to agree with them.

In fact, the BEST that can be said for Clark is he is doing it all for himself and is just using the Dems to get his foot in the White House door. The WORST is not really something ANY of us would like.

How would YOU feel if Clark was responsible for the destruction of the Democratic party, like Blair is to Labour?

PNAC was originally made for Democrats, and it's hardly different than the typical Democratic foreign policy, like Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Indonesia, and Latin America - under Carter.

Clark is no more PNAC than Dean is. Hell Dean has the head of AIPAC running his campaign. I'll be laughing my ass off when President Dean invades Syria and his fan club scrambles to say "no, it's not PNAC"!

"How would YOU feel if Clark was responsible for the destruction of the Democratic party, like Blair is to Labour?"

Actually I believe that was Clinton.

but i like to hope that a DEM, educated, military man, who has witnessed war, would heed the advice of eisenhower about the MIC, and has seen first hand the destructiveness and perilous course our current crusade has put us on would have the spine to say no.

:shrug:

peace

The VERY BEST you could say is he is a centrist who has NO partisan ties. In fact, that is what he said TWO WEEKS ago. He is ONLY on the Dem ticket becaue he sees that as his best chance to become President at this time.

That means he can lean Dem today, and Repub tomorrow, and there would be NOTHING the Dems can say about it because he TOLD them he had no partisan ties.

Is that REALLY the best antidote to Bush, or are we likely to see Bush's policies merely toned down a bit and given a sugar coating?

is a Democrat; he has Democratic/left views. He simply isn't a rabid partisan, after a lifetime in the military. He has publicly staked out a set of positions that would make it difficult to suddenly turn into a Republican or a PNACer.

He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, given speech after speech, done television commentary -- in all of it he expresses disapproval for the PNAC agenda. Do you have any evidence that he holds any Republican/PNAC views? Nope. Just vague worries about what he 'might' do, based on no evidence at all. Of all the candidates, I think he is the least likely to go out and start a war, because he has nothing to prove along those lines, and can't be blackmailed with the 'soft' label that Democrats so often are. Get some evidence or get another line of attack.

but unless I could show you my spaceship and pictures of my hometown on Mars you'd be rather sceptical wouldn't you?

Remember, Clark has only stated he's a Democrat SINCE he decided to run as one. Why wasn't he saying it months ago? Why only since he decided to run?

He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, given speech after speech, done television commentary -- in all of it he expresses disapproval for the PNAC agenda. Do you have any evidence that he holds any Republican/PNAC views?

Yep, those self same books and articles. He DOESN'T criticise the desire to shape the Middle East to the US' satisfaction, he merely argues against the way the Bush cabal went about it. In fact he advocated attacking Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan before attacking Iraq. All that is is a reversal of the ORDER of attacks.

Bush wanted to attack Iraq to gain cotrol of Iraqi oil, minimising the disturbance to US oil supplies from an attack on Saudi Arabia. Have you noticed that Saudi Arabia is playing ball with Bush now that they can't threaten to withhold oil? I sure have.

The idea is to force ME countries to play ball or risk being attacked - the same idea behind Clark's plan for the "war on terrorism". The only difference is that Clark's plan is more direct.

And I don't know if you've noticed over there, but unlike Blair's Labor, the Democrats in the US aren't exactly tearing up the place and in control. Clark's return to the Presidency is our BEST chance at reclaiming some control over our government.

DTH

Do you really doubt that Bush will be voted out? So NOW is the time when crypto-rightists would want to take over the Democratic party. Now is the time to position themselves for when the Dems WILL be in control.

Once they ARE in control, and the Crypto-rightists are in control of the Dems, then it will be too late to change your mind. You have to act NOW to prevent it.

After 2004 will be too late.

I lived through this in NZ, the British are living through it in the UK, and YOU may very well be living through it after 2004.

If Clark gets anywhere near the nomination I'm not even hanging around to find out.

The entire Anglo-Saxon empire is on exactly the same plan and experiencing the same infiltration of their Liberal parties.

It is humorous, when you know the personalities on this board to line up how many of our posters who rationalized the war against Iraq are so firmly behing Clark trying to convince people that this is the genuine Liberal we should vote for. Many ex-Lieberman posters have proudly switched their affiliation to Clark and I find that coincidence alarming.

The Anglo Saxon empire is crumbling as other countries are fighting centuries of domination, exploitation, and interference in their internal affairs.

In another thread, Zorra brought our attention to Clark's 9/26/02 Statement Before House Armed Services Committee

It's a frightening read because I see little difference between his statement and what Bush did. What I read in men like Clark is that they aren't furious at what Bush did, they're simply furious that he bungled it. The machinery behind Bush has a few more countries to address and they are not going to give up their plans this easily.

Statement:

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Naw- under Clark, we would have gone to war in just as evil a manner- we simply would have tried to get a few more ducks in order.

This is no improvement and IMO would be worse. There's no rationalizing this type of thing during the scariest times this world has ever experienced. Take a chance on a man who 6 short months ago was heaping roses on that PNAC cabal in the White House? No way.

Clark's own recent words are giving the plan away and people need to take the time to read them to make up their own minds on how much they want to trust unknown candidates.

Democratic politicians are started to speak out; the latest was
Gov. Tom Vilsack from Iowa just 2 days ago. Kucinich, during the last debates, already mentioned that Clark was one of the authors of the 54 page document addressing the occupation of Iraq. Clark was sure in on the plan and now we're to believe he wouldn't work with the planners to advance it? I am sorry if I can not believe that. Lieberman already took a walloping over this and has basically been repudiated by the voters so the brave New Democrats (DLC) went out and got a new horse and Clark is their new golden boy. From Lieberman to Clark brought to you by the same DLC- that alone should be setting off alarm bells!

I am firmly in your corner Devils Advocate NZ. Peace

Again, I'm not really interested in paranoia like that. Clark has a distinguished, honorable career, he has shown true character and integrity, and he has expressed liberal values for many, many years, despite his preference -- ingrained by his career in the military -- for believing that he has been non-partisan.

I'm not sweating it. Most of his supporters aren't sweating it either. And I think we have a bit more to lose than you do.

But thanks so much for your concern!

DTH

Again, I'm not really interested in paranoia like that. Clark has a distinguished, honorable career, he has shown true character and integrity, and he has expressed liberal values for many, many years, despite his preference -- ingrained by his career in the military -- for believing that he has been non-partisan.

Then why was he voting Republican for most of that time? In fact he ONLY voted Dem when he was voting for centrist Dems who supported the globalisation (ie international facist) movement. In fact he made it clear that he was voting for the man not the party only TWO WEEKS ago. This is the SAME party he now expects to make HIM their representative?

He has all but admitted that he is a right wing centrist who is only using the Dem party as a vehicle to transport him into the White House. From his public statements he would be more honest to run as an independant, because that is what he claims to be.

So why isn't he? Such integrity!

I'm not sweating it. Most of his supporters aren't sweating it either.

You should be, and if Clark wins, I gaurantee you WILL be, just like the Labour party is now "sweating it" over Blair.

And I think we have a bit more to lose than you do.

When was the last time the US military bombed the US? I believe foreigners have more to worry about than US citizens at the moment, and the US has already shown its displeasure out our Government's stance - going so far as to make overtures to Maori sovereignty movements suggesting the supply of weapons if the movement would bring down the Labour government that banned nuclear weapons from our territory.

I know this because I have relatives who were part of those movements, and they made it clear that some weapons WERE supplied - luckily for NZ the same Labour government began addressing Maori concerns. It also was lucky for the US because these Maori were more anti-American than anti-NZ Government. They may have been a militant lot, but they were also patriotic lot. They saw NZ as a Maori nation, not an English colony, and CERTAINLY not a US colony. The CIA never seems to think that THEY are the ones being used - even though more often than not, they are.

and advocating multilateralism:
" I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of
the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were
still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This
was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and
there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what
they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of
the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it
would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after
individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0

If you read the whole article, all he was denouncing was the strategy, not the CONCEPT. In fact if you look at the PNAC document you will see that the concept is to "remake the middle east" - which Clark is advocating in this article when he talks about Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In fact we KNOW that one of the PNAC objectives in attacking Iraq was to protect oil supplies before dealing with Saudi Arabia itself.

All Clark is arguing with is the way the Pentagon is supposedly carrying out this concept, NOT the concept itself. It is the same as the Iraq war. Clark was critical of the WAY it was done, not the fact that it was done.

That is why his statements on Iraq have been so confused - supporting the resolution one minute - denouncing it the next. What he is saying is war on Iraq was not wrong, what was wrong was NOT building a proper international coalition, and not using enough troops to do it right.

Find me a quote where he denounces PNAC specifically, rather than the tactics Bush has used to carry out the PNAC plan, and I might agree with you, but all I see is one General arguing that another General did it wrong.

the people who still support segregation just moved under the republican's big hood.

He was still on active duty when he voted for Clinton...under his oath to defend the Constitution, not a political ideology. I wish more people would vote for the good of the country, not a party, or a single issue.

...most of the enlisted men are democrats. And, as we have seen with several generals coming out both in favor and opposed to Clark, officers can go either way.

...As a former enlisted man I would say: Not a chance. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, most military members period vote for the GOP. :(

...and she was speaking on her experience as well as those she speaks with on the air.

In fact, she mentions it pretty frequently.

...I'm just stating fact as to how I saw things when I was in the military. :)

will not attack other nations and if an actual attack was perpetrated on us, he wouldn't be found doing the kind of "made up fairy tale for oil" shit that Bush did. However, I can see candidates who have no damn experience with the world community and the limitations of the military being sucked into a lot of crap because of manipulative advisors working for war manufacturers. Clark can cut through the crap. People who don't know what to look for will be lead just like Bozo the Clown that got us into this mess.

at the Al Franken book signing in Cambridge,MA. I had quite a lengthy wait in line for my books to get signed and I ended up chatting with the young kids behind me. They were Harvard freshman,smart,articulate and up on current events and all excited about the Clark candidacy citing all the reasons often cited by Clark supporters on DU. This is off the topic of the military but one of the young boys was planning on an JAG officer career in the navy and he was a Clark supporter and not enamored of Bush. :hi:

Thanks for the personal story, I LOVE these more than just about anything! They really help ground all of the BS that's thrown around. :-)

DTH

function, as IC pointed out above, is to apply murderous force in defense NOT of "the American people," but in defense of the US's "right" to consume 25% of the world's resources, while constituting only 5% of its people.

This function is manifestly unfair & immoral, and using mass murder & repression to carry it out is likewise immoral. Anyone brought into the military suffers from the necessary mind-warping involved in carrying out such a dishonest, brutal & unjust social function. The longer you're in the military & the higher you rise in its ranks, the worse this mind-warping is.

While it's true that many individuals in the military are perfectly fine & decent people when considered as individuals, no one can spend many years of his life in a perverted organization, and escape the consequences. The military is authoritarian, fascistic, murderous, dishonest, & demanding of absurd degrees of loyalty, blind obedience, and conformism. Everything about it is opposed to mental health. You have to be kidding yourself to think you can spend much time in an organization like that, without being deeply harmed by it.

You've confirmed something I thought I'd figured out last week.

"While it's true that many individuals in the military are perfectly fine & decent people when considered as individuals, no one can spend many years of his life in a perverted organization, and escape the consequences. The military is authoritarian, fascistic, murderous, dishonest, & demanding of absurd degrees of loyalty, blind obedience, and conformism. Everything about it is opposed to mental health. You have to be kidding yourself to think you can spend much time in an organization like that, without being deeply harmed by it."

You try to be nice to military people, but in the end you dagger them. My father and grandfather spent a great deal of time within the military, and came out to be two of the most decent human beings I have ever had the privilege to know. My father is the chairman of the Democratic Party in Alabama, and has done more to further the causes you believe in than ten of you cloned and on speed ever could.

You make me very sad.

And I thought he was decent and honorable. The war didn't turn him into an authoritarian, either. Military service doesn't make monsters of people necessarily. That's a very broad brush. (I'm actually replying to the poster before you, Will.)

and had IWW newspapers up in the attic when I was a girl. ( This is Oklahoma don't forget) I'm responding to you because the original poster is on ignore.

:hi:

Because Rich isn't saying anything that a thousand credentialed, respected psychologists haven't also said: what you do shapes who you are. What you take into your hand, you take into your heart. You necessarily take it into your heart because not even an all-stops-out psychopath ever truly thinks of himself as a bad person. He rationalises. He projects his pathology onto others. 'Everyone would be like me if only they had the courage'. 'They asked for it'. 'They made me do it'. That's psychopath reasoning. 'Gooks', 'slants', 'they're all fscking VCs'. That's military reasoning. There's not any really fundamental difference. You can't coldbloodedly kill someone you haven't dehumanised first.

Your dad and grandad are probably wonderful, decent people -- to their kids and grandkids and people like their kids and grandkids. They might be wonderful, decent people more widely, too--if they never saw combat. If they did see combat, if they killed aggressively, then you better believe they did their share of demonising and dehumanising. They wouldn't be here, otherwise.

So ease up on Rich, huh?

IC makes a good point below about tone, which Rich appears to have taken to heart.

Yes, my father saw combat in Vietnam. He probably endured his share of dehumanizing. You could say the same thing about cops. Broad-brush generalizations about soldiers who follow orders, missing completely the assholes who order them to do so, is ridiculous. Bush and crew have done more dehumanizing things than the entire 101st Airborne, and only one in ten of them served in the military in any capacity. Poof to Rich's theory, and to taking it easy on him.

He pointed out that the higher one goes, the more assholish one tends to become. Because the grunt need merely dehumanise the 'enemy'. The officers must dehumanise their own people as well.

If you're a colonel or a general or a politician, how can you send a kid whose hand you might have shaken, who perhaps looks up to you as a sort of parental figure...how do you send that kid off to kill or be killed for the sake of additional profits for the already-hyperwealthy? How do you send ten thousand of those kids off to maim and kill other kids for money, and be maimed or killed in turn? What kind of person does it take to do that?

Smedley Butler claimed that career military people enter a sort of fugue state, in which they operate without ever questioning the ethics of what they're doing. They become, in effect, voluntary psychopaths. And that fits with all the research that's gone on for the past 40 years, beginning with Milgram.

When Butler retired, as you no doubt know, he spoke out loudly, scathingly, and relentlessly against imperialist adventurism and against the system that sponsors it. He did that for the rest of his (regretably short) life. I think that's the only real test of whether someone repents his actions--he tries to stop others from doing the same thing. I don't see Clark doing that, do you?

(edit: added 'or a politician')

Any argument they try to make about "military dehumanization" can be made about cops. Thus, it's a false argument.

I'm sure he's a lot better than the quality of your argument, here -- which is that anyone who criticizes the military as an institution and its function in US society, is ipso facto attacking the decency of all soldiers as individuals. (That's the logic that Bush uses when he says that if you oppose his war, it means you "hate America.")

I didn't attack the soldiers as individuals. (Of course, I know by now that you're not at all careful about accurately representing what someone says, before attacking it.)

About your comparison between me personally, and your family members -- I'm sure you'd concede this is silly. This is what's called an "ad hominem" attack. You never met me in your life; it's absurd to bluster about comparisons between me & your family members.

participated in the invasion of Russia were - with full justification - felt to be wonderful decent loving husbands and fathers, by their families. Yet I would maintain that participating in the invasion of Russia was somehow seriously harmful to the souls of those soldiers.

Your position, when transposed to that situation, is to snort indigantly "No! serving in the Wehrmacht was not harmful to their souls in any way!"

Godwin's Law.

at issue, automatically lose.

My mistake.

The lead post of this thread argued that "Soldiers can be liberal. (Clark)" I objected to the thrust of this, saying that in general, the military is a reactionary institution. I specifically targeted my comments at those who'd served longest in the military, & risen highest.

By selectively snipping my remarks, you allowed yourself to distort them, portraying them as direct assaults on the honor of all soldiers as individuals. (As I pointed out, the Busheviks use a very similar type of logic, when accusing antiwar people of "hating America.")

To put it mildly, I'm on very safe ground in maintaining that the US military is a reactionary institution. People who spend their careers in it are obviously going to be affected by that, in ways that generally bind them to right-leaning elements of society.

I oppose Clark, because he's too cozy with right-leaning elements of society. You support him - because, as you've said yourself, you're a "whore" when it comes to any conceivable prospect of defeating Bush. I've said you're becoming a sellout, by so readily accepting a package like Clark. And that is what's at the root of your infantile attacks on me, your ridiculous invocation of your daddy's honor, etc, & your deliberate distortions of what I've said.

I see two posts, #62 & #59, that seem to offer substantive rebuttals & counterpoints to your misrepresentations of what I said. They've been hanging unanswered for 2 hours now. Are you planning on commenting? Or is your MO now going to be: 1) willfuly distort what someone says, 2) attack your own misrepresentation, then 3) fail to acknowledge points of substance that are raised against you?

Surely that wouldn't be your style... Would it?

I remembered that I have a life, and went out and lived it. You know who and what you are, Rich. Others have chosen to be more polite with you. Go talk to them.

Seriously. The purpose of the Democratic party is to win control of the state, and of course the military is the heart of the state.

You are wrong, the purpose of the military is NOT to defend "the US's "right" to consume 25% of the world's resources, while constituting only 5% of its people.

The purpose of the US military is to take commands from the civilian leadership, who get elected by making sure the US uses the military so we can consume the vast majority of products.

You may as well say no one who has ever been elected to an office should be president, since they are part of a "reactionary" institution that "warped" them making them promise their voters a high standard of living.

I would NEVER want you making decisions about the US military, that's for sure.

You are wrong, the purpose of the military is NOT to defend "the US's "right" to consume 25% of the world's resources, while constituting only 5% of its people.

The purpose of the US military is to take commands from the civilian leadership, who get elected by making sure the US uses the military so we can consume the vast majority of products.

While you certainly have a point, I'm not certain I wholly agree with your argument. The civilian leadership gets elected by continuing a highly destructive economy based almost solely on the production and purchase of consumer goods. The fact that the US military must be used to maintain dominion over these resources is a sidebar.

That's why most people don't want to hear about abuses of human rights outside of the US, whether it is through direct US military intervention or by proxy. The last thing they are willing to consider is the consequences of their lifestyle. Bringing this up is not an effort to condemn them, it's an analysis of basic human nature -- they way in which we allow ourselves to be convinced of something that truly goes against our self-interest.

While I agree with your basic assessment of the post to which you replied, I think you're missing the effect that the glorification of the military (and war) has on the ability of the Establishment to maintain this destructive lifestyle that necessitates the use of the military to project power in continuation of the "American way of life."

is the flip side to demonization of the military, and saying anyone who comes out of the military is "warped" but a career politician somehow isn't is just way way off.

Since the Democratic party has long been part of the Establishment, usually the strongest part of the Establishment, I'm not looking for leadership against war and the military from the Democratic party, and certainly not from career politicians in general.

Any politician that promises that is just a liar.

This subject was discussed exhaustively in some recent threads involving the military-industrial complex, and how to counter its power. The theory I put forward is that politics is essentially a reflection of society, in most ways. The reason that politicians support the continuation of a massive military-industrial complex (and the glorification of the military that goes along with it), is that society has been conditioned to support the continuation of a lifestyle of overconsumption and mass-consumerism -- the "American way of life".

I'm not looking for any one politician to act as a savior and dismantle the MIC. To expect that would be folly. What I espouse (and I think our very survival as a species depends on it) is the countering of perceptions that lead people to passively accept this mass-consumption lifestyle as somehow the best one out there. I'm convinced it isn't. And once it is exposed as such -- concepts like militarism and the MIC that goes along with it won't need to be dismantled. They will simply crumble into dust and be blown away by the wind.

"I would NEVER want you making decisions about the US military, that's for sure."
- Well, if I had the power, I would probably start out by making huge cuts in the military.

"You may as well say no one who has ever been elected...should be president, since they are part of a "reactionary" institution that "warped" them making them promise their voters a high standard of living."
- Actually, I agree with this. Most of them should never have been elected, & most have indeed been part of a reactionary institution.

Why am I a Democrat? Easy - I'm not. I live in the US, where there's a 2-party monopoly of government, so there isn't much choice. The Democrats are less evil than the Republicans, but both are unacceptably bad. So I almost always have voted for Democrats, but usually without enthusiasm or conviction. (I DO have enthusiasm for Dennis Kucinich, however, who's rather a special case.)

While it's true that many individuals in the military are perfectly fine & decent people when considered as individuals, no one can spend many years of his life in a perverted organization, and escape the consequences. The military is authoritarian, fascistic, murderous, dishonest, & demanding of absurd degrees of loyalty, blind obedience, and conformism. Everything about it is opposed to mental health. You have to be kidding yourself to think you can spend much time in an organization like that, without being deeply harmed by it.

How much time have you served in the military, Rich? I'm going to guess none. Which is why you have totally, completely missed the point of my post above. In the end, you essentially give people in the military -- many of whom might otherwise agree with you -- a kick square in the balls.

Perhaps this article by Stan Goff might help you understand the fallacy of your argument a little better, and some of the positives that come from a terribly misguided institution.
The Left and The Military -- Leaping the Chasm

Interesting what Goff says about the "socialism" lived & much appreciated by soldiers living inside the institution.

To respond to your comments directly:
- I feel it's somewhat an overstatement to claim that I "totally" missed the point of your post. The argument about "25% of the world's resources," etc, was an important part of your post; you can surely see that I do not miss the point of that.

- I don't agree that I give military people "a kick square in the balls" (though I do see why someone might get that impression). I don't think (& didn't say) that the harmful effects of the military are the "fault" of the soldiers themselves. On the contrary, I think they are the victims of it. I'm not the type that called Vietnam vets "babykillers;" I felt, on the contrary, that they were put into an insane situation, & I felt sympathy for the horrors involved in this.

- As you know, you're one of the posters on this board that I hold in high regard. If you tell me I went over a line, it is meaningful to me. I think though that you might be reacting mostly to my tone, which was in turn a reaction to the original post in this thread. There, I saw, as usual, that DTH was doing yet another commercial for Clark. My tone was largely an expression of my annoyance with the thrust of this commercial.

- Isn't the very fact that someone like yourself felt compelled to apply for CO status a kind of acknowledgement that the military environment is on balance an objectionable & harmful one, when one considers the longterm effects of it on one's inner being?

- I'm a great admirer of, for example, Howard Zinn, who of course flew bomber missions in WWII. I don't think I see the military in different terms than he does. I don't think I see it differently than YOU do, either. I'm just more irritated by the Clark propagandists than you are, & have allowed myself a more provocative style on this board than you have.

Points taken, Rich. But on issues like this, it's necessary to keep the importance of tone in perspective.

IOW, look to the battles you can win. Rather than seek to tear down, look to build up in order to change perceptions. That way, you won't immediately alienate people because you're offering an alternative to their perception of reality, rather than simply challenging it.

And thanks for the vote of confidence. If I were to judge by the thread I started yesterday on religion, though, I would have said that you were definitely in the minority. :D

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

all military leaders in theater at the time of the dropping of 2 nukes on japan were AGAINST it.

eisenhower warned of the MIC

JFK said NO to operation northwoods.

shoot, even caesar brought many fair minded reforms to the people.

true that it is wise to be leary of military men bearing fruit but not ALL are evil.

peace

which they both have used well in their lives.

Both of them are progressives too.

No mental health problems, addictions, spousal abuse, etc.....
Your theory.....:thumbsdown:

:kick:
DemEx

Your standards would mean we'd automatically reject Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Max Cleland, and John F. Kennedy, but NOT necessarily reject Reagan, Limbaugh, Annthrax Coulter, Cheney, DeLay, etc, etc. Guess that's the trouble with overly simplistic pious generalizations.

You're making a logical error, namely claiming 'not-A is not-B' after hearing 'A is B'. 'A is B' tells you nothing about how many A is B, nor whether B includes anything besides A.

doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. I don't see anything obviously laughable about the idea that Clark might be a GOPer in disguise. Or, as it were, 'bipolitical'. After all, Strom Thurmond once claimed to be a Dem, too.

of the Democrats for a while. Sure, Kucinich is the real deal, but I don't see how Dean is any different from Clark. Unless, that is, you simply can't abide a career military person in civilian government. If the Democratic party really has a problem with that, then we will be the minority forever.

That's what I can't abide. I refuse to accord him a free pass. My taxes help pay his military pension--that's all he's earned from me, so far.

What Democrat --what proven Democrat-- has ever spoken at a GOP fund-raiser? I don't know of any. Has even Lieberman?

but I'm not buying the hysterical anti-Clark crap coming from the Dean camp. If I'm going to hold my nose and vote for a centrist, Clark looks a lot better than Dean. Clark spoke at an Arkansas GOP fundraiser, it's not as if he was raising money for Bush. From the looks of it, he was appearing at the invitation of his local friends.

At to be honest, I see little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on a whole lot of issues, especially foreign policy and economics. If you want to complain about American imperialism, explain to me what Clinton did in Haiti - one of the most repulsive uses of US military force to prop-up military dictatorships and foreign corporations I have ever seen in my lifetime. Under a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress.

Frankly, I'm just happy to have a military officer saying "I'm proud to be a Democrat" and get it covered on the TV. If Dems can't win back a measure of the military vote and get some high ranking officers on our side, we'll be cut out of power forever.

So now he's getting a "free pass" because his supporters aren't concerned that he spoke at a GOP fundraiser??

...And none of the other candidates ever spoke anywhere we disapprove of, before they were candidates?

Or the crypto-dem idea... I mean, look at any of these guys close enough, and it seems obvious they're altering their image just in time for the campaign trail. Dig deep enough, heck, not even that deep, and these guys all look suspicious. DK, for example, and his repulsive voting record ("partial-birth", Child Custody Protection Act, etc.). DK supporters are willing to look past a man's freakin' voting record, but Clark supporters are supposed to bag on the guy because he spoke at the opposition's fundraiser before he ever got into politics?

Be suspicious if you want because he's military -- I don't think that's any weirder than thinking you might not want any specialist as president (say, a chef). :)

However, he's started this race a *year* later than Dean and other candidates. He's proven that he can lead on the battlefield, but is extremely green on the political battlefield.

Also, the folks running his campaign seem to be the same DLC types that lost Congress in 1996. I'd need to see Clark's campaign embrace *alot* more of Dean's tactics (which I worry that some DLC types don't want to see used in the Democratic Party) before I'd even consider supporting Clark at this point in the primary.

I really want to see these guys on the same ticket: Dean / Clark, 2004. That would be an awesome Democratic ticket.

> The Associated Press September 30, 2003
>
> After earning date with Clark, Internet movement tries to fit in
>
> By DAVID HAMMER, Associated Press Writer
>
> LITTLE ROCK: If most presidential hopefuls woo voters like old-
> fashioned suitors, then Wesley Clark hooked up with his supporters
> through the political equivalent of an Internet dating service.
>
> The challenge now is to transform the virtual affection of the
> grassroots Draft Clark movement into a real-world structure to
> compete in traditional political power circles.
>
> The two aspects of Clark's campaign started the crucial melding
> process over the weekend as volunteers transformed a 2,500-square-
> foot office on the fourth floor of Little Rock's historic Union
> Station into a campaign war room - albeit one with pastel-colored
> support columns, a pop-art decor leftover by the previous tenants.
>
> An identical space down the hall will become offices for Clark and
> paid staff members in the next two weeks, said campaign operations
> director Ellen Bruce.
>

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

talk in degrees? To what degree is X candidate liberal. Under what circumstances is X antiwar. I think the broad (and simple) terms being used by the media to lable candidates is a problem. My worry is that they can turn against a dem candidate quickly and fiercly. A simple lable that everyone may define differently, could be used to paint a candidate as a liar. My concern and mistrust rest with the media.

Are the underpaid, exhausted men and women in uniform responsible for the wars they prosecute? Of course not. And neither are the generals. War is the burden of soldiers, but the responsibility of civilian society. That's us.

I couldn't agree more. That is why it so important we make careful decisions about who we elect. There was a post a time ago by TahitiNut that stated this position much better than I ever could.

TN if you are out there, I'd love to read that post again.

Peace
G

I appreciate you bringing this to us.

I think one of the many valuable products of the Clark administration will be in the morale of the military and the additudes in the militrary from the top down. The notion that all military and all brass are and always have been ideological Republicans is utter bunk and it should be shattered. Many Democrats in the military for years have felt like they had to go around hiding their voter registration cards and keep their mouths shut. We can change that. Proud Democrats have always served their country with distinction. Let's try to show that we are as proud of them as they are of us.

Ok, he's a sailor, not a soldier, but still..

and a million thanks for posting it! It's a personal issue for me, as someone that spent 8 years in the Army and knew plenty of liberals while I was in. Does anyone really think that the entire military is composed of right wing loons?

Really nice article.

When soldiers can hear Mush Dimbaugh trash Clinton and Democrats each week for years what can you expect.

How can they get by with it?

Such extremism should never be presented to our military.

When soldiers can hear Mush Dimbaugh trash Clinton and Democrats each week for years what can you expect.

How can they get by with it?

Such extremism should never be presented to our military.

Didn't you see all the other DU'ers who mentioned they were in the military? Their liberal families are in the military? Heck, there's even a post saying a gay friend is in the military.

Lots of liberal solidiers. Unless you're saying all those DU'ers who posted are not progressives, just because they've served. Heck, there's even a blogger online -- a soldiers serving in iraq -- who writes about how he hates the Bush administration and is against the war. But you know what? He's a soldier and doing his duty, even if he's against it. And that's the way our military should be. The military obeys the civilians, whether the administration civilians are republicans or democrats. Otherwise, you have military coups.

There are lots of liberal soldiers.

I met very few Liberal soldiers when I was in the military and I was all over.

I just retired from 20 years in the military and the overwhelming majority are Republicans. They may be pissed off Republicans right now but they are Republicans.

Clinton was jeered by the military- he was hated and reviled by the troops as the command turned a blind eye to the absolute disrespect that even Privates were paying to their Commander in Chief.

Those of us who were in the military and still remained Liberals can assure you that the military is Republican.

Sure, Clark is banking on exploiting their hatred of Bush and garnering their support as well as the support of the Reagan Democrats and any other Republicans disenamoured by Bush and he probably could- as could Dean and any other candidate out there but just because they would consider voting for Clark doesn't make them Liberals.

There's something about the military that just doesn't attract Liberals and even, on the off-chance that it does, the majority exit after their first term.

I don't agree with everything RichM said but it's his opinion. People like Stan Goff and S. Brian Wilson are not your run of the mill military - they are pissed off people fighting the same machine I think Clark represents because of what it did to their lives. You take the group Vets for Peace- many of them are 100% die-hard Kucinich supporters; the remainder won't even consider voting for a Democrat because they refuse to participate in the 2-Party charade any longer. That speaks sad volumes to me.

even a small percentage would still equal lots of liberals, no? But your point is well taken that there may be more republicans than democrats. My point is that there are lots of liberal soldiers, even if they represent a smaller percent, rather than the opposite position that all soldiers must be republicans because you can't be a liberal and a soldier.

People are still debating whether the big-time contributer to the Republican party, Bill McBride was really GOP-lite. For that, Florida is stuck with Jeb Bush for another four years.

I'm not willing to take that kind of a gamble on my country.

Not only do I want Bush OUT but I want a Democrat (a real one) to do a GOOD JOB so that they can get re-elected, not fuel the fire of the Right who say "see? We told you a Democrat would be ineffective".

Well said Clark!!!!

:bounce:

2 freken weeks ago is in any way entitled to even be considered as our nominee? It is so arrogant.

The man was a republican who changed his R to a D a few weeks ago and now we're supposed to vote for him as president?

This sounds like a Dr. Evil plot.... so simple and stupid that I’m amazed anybody is falling for it.

How many of you Clark supporters would vote for Bush if he changed his R to a D? It seems that SAYING you're a dem now is the only qualification for being the dem nominee for president.



And to address your other question, it is not just that he is military that worries people… it is that he had no problem showering civilians with Depleted Uranium rounds, bombing HOSPITALS filled with civilians, and ordering the British forces to attack the Russian forces, prompting the British general to refuse Clark’s colossally stupid order. Clark talked about how much he liked the PNAC crew and wanted to work with them again… he talked of how great Reagan and Bush are, at a republican fundraiser. When Clark left the military, he went to work with Henry Kissinger… that alone is reason enough for me never to vote for this guy. We find out now that he was in favor of the war in Iraq, just not happy with the way Bush was running it… guess he figured he could do a better job.


Clark is a fraud. He is a republican masquerading as a democrat, spewing all the buzzwords and sound bites. But anybody who looks at his history, and not simply the hype from the draft Clark booster club, sees a scary war monger who has been working side by side with same folks we’re fighting... and who only just changed his story and claimed to be a dem to run for the presidency.

I will say here and now that I will not vote for Clark for the nomination NOR for the presidency if he gets the nomination. I will vote for any of the other 9, even Lieberman, but there is no way in hell I will vote for Clark.

For example, General George Marshall (Nobel Peace Prize; Marshall Plan; NATO) not only did not belong to a party, he never voted in elections because he believed soldiers should be absolutely nonpartisan. Most soldiers don't go quite that far.

I dimly remember that the public didn't know what party Colin Powell belonged to for a long time, although people who knew him knew he leaned right.

Another historical note: Nobody knew what party Ulysses S. Grant belonged to until he declared himself a candidate for the 1868 nomination. Grant didn't vote while he was in the military, either.

The point being is that there isn't anything weird or sinister about Clark keeping his political tendencies a secret through his career. This is a long, honorable tradition within the military.

I understand that Clark is registered to vote as an independent, not a Republican.

And this business about Clark being a "scary war monger" is just crap. Historically, ex-generals who become President are less likely to get us into war than civilians. If you don't believe me, explain the "military" background of Presidents Madison (War of 1812), Polk (Mexican War), Lincoln (Civil War), McKinley (Spanish American War), Wilson (World War I), Roosevelt (World War II), Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam)?