Clark: The Democrats' Military Option

... count me also a believer in the potential payoff in reframing the national political debate if Clark allays these early concerns and captures the Democratic nomination. To many in the party, the chief appeal of the retired general is that he insulates Democrats from charges of being unpatriotic or weak on national security. Yet on domestic issues, Clark's military background may also prove an important, unanticipated asset.

During the past several decades, the American military has become a model of successful social reform. Perhaps the best example is racial integration. While many other institutions remain nearly as segregated today as they were before the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s, the armed services have undergone a transformation. Officers are evaluated for promotion partly on the basis of their handling of race relations, and the military has emerged as one of the most influential defenders of affirmative action.

The introduction of women into the military has also led the services to create child care and other family-oriented programs that are far in advance of what corporate America typically offers. Military training and career ladders provide models of workforce improvement. And, of course, the military has long offered generous health-care and retirement benefits.

In other words, it's not just that Clark's military background gives him credibility on national defense. It may also give him credibility on a variety of social issues that the armed forces have addressed. And because of the respect that the military enjoys with much of the public that is otherwise disenchanted with the federal government, Clark may be able to communicate with voters who would otherwise be unreachable by a Democratic candidate.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/10/starr-p.html

I know, it's hard to believe -- but it's true.

Check out the following article by Former US Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Stan Goff:

http://www.freedomroad.org/milmatters_1_left&military.html

An excerpt:

The military is a violent macho culture. Surely that's no surprise. So are many team sports. Often enough that judgment ends examination. Warfare did much to shape the gender roles that now dominate our culture, even those aspects of the male script that are no longer recognizable as martial. Military institutions exist as the primary external armed body of the state, and in many countries as the internal armed body as well. All true. Military organizations are bureaucratic and they cover up their crimes and mistakes. Well and good. So do corporations, and there are workers there, too.

But how many on the left will acknowledge that the institution with the most effective affirmative action program in the country, at least with regard to race, is the United States Army? Interracial marriage is more common in the military than the civil sector by orders of magnitude. How many on the left recognize that on a military base there resides a community that is in some respects more socialist than capitalist?

Every resident of a US military base has come to expect high-quality schools, a plenitude of commons—including parks, recreations centers, gymnasiums, stadiums, swimming pools, cinemas, craft shops, hiking trails, community centers, and nature preserves—a three-tiered universal health care system, counseling centers, and safe, well-designed residential neighborhoods where housing, maintenance, and utilities are provided free. The disparity between the highest and lowest pay in the military is less than 13 to 1, compared to an average of 458 to 1 in the civil sector.

The majority who remain in the military remain there for these reasons. It never occurs to them that what they like about the military is socialist. They frequently hate the deployments, the occasional violence, the bureaucratic backbiting, and the ubiquitous incompetence. They put up with all these negatives because they and their families enjoy some modicum of security and well-being. Soldiers know some of the concrete possibilities of socialism better than the rest of us. They've lived them.

Not that I'm advocating talking up "socialism" as a selling point, but it ties in with what you just brought up. ;-)

at the polls at army times they seem that there`s more issues that need to be resolved in the armed services and bush and rummy refuse to deal with them..clark is the man to speak up for the people who defend our country....

What do you know, they were integrated before anyone else too. Great health care, good retirement, and a social safety net that is the envy of us civilians.

Interesting...

His experiences:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/7146730.htm
The State Columbia, SC Friday Oct. 31, 2003
Time to help those who can't afford health care

By WESLEY CLARK, Guest columnist

Thirty-four years ago this coming February, I was a young army
captain, maneuvering through the South Vietnamese jungle. Searching
for the enemy, I was hit by a burst of AK-47 fire to my leg, hand,
shoulder and hip.
-----------------
When I got home, I went through massive rehabilitation. It took
months before I could run again. And it was months more before I
could shake another person's hand with a firm grip. But the U.S. Army was with me every step of the way.

It provided for every single bit of my health care, right down to the rubber ball I squeezed for nearly a year to build strength in my
hand. And the reason I had such good health care is because the Army
understood that without adequate health care, our soldiers could not
do their jobs. I think the same principle applies to our families:
Our nation must provide the same kind of care for its families that
our Army does for its soldiers.

Unfortunately, we are far from realizing this vision today.

There is a health care crisis in America — two crises, actually. The
first is that 44 million Americans don't have health insurance,
including 8.5 million children. In South Carolina alone, 500,000
people are uninsured; 55,000 of them are children. This is appalling.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/7146730.htm

"Universal coverage for children and universal access for all
Americans"