LAT op-ed: De-Republicanize the military

Rosa Brooks:
Weaning the military from the GOP
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007

....the Republicanization of the military was not just because of "natural" self-selection. It also resulted from changed recruitment and base-closing policies, combined with the steady Republicanization of the American South. The period since the late 1960s saw the closure of many northeastern ROTC programs and the expansion of those programs in the South. By the late 1990s, more than 40% of all ROTC programs were in the South — mainly at state universities — though the South is home to fewer than 30% of the nation's college students. Similar patterns in base closures have meant that disproportionate numbers of military personnel are now stationed at bases in the South and Southwest.

For a time, the Republicanization of the military became self-reinforcing. The GOP has controlled the White House for all but 12 of the last 34 years and has made a determined effort to identify itself with the military and to court military voters. By the turn of the millennium, the perception that Republicans were "pro-military" while Democrats were "soft" on defense had become an entrenched facet of American politics.

The latest Military Times poll offers the most telling evidence yet that this is beginning to change. Although the reasons for the recent military flight from the Republican Party can only be guessed at, it's a safe bet that disgust at Bush administration bungling in Iraq is the single biggest factor....

The partial de-Republicanization of the military is a hopeful sign — and not just for Democrats. A politicized military presents a threat to democratic ideals of civilian control. Over the last 30 years, the Republicanization of the military also has had a deeply distorting effect on public debates about national security, making it almost impossible to question Republican national security policies without being labeled "anti-military."

As we struggle to move beyond the horrors of Iraq, we desperately need to develop fresh approaches to changing security threats. That requires a military that isn't partisan — and political leaders who won't make posturing in front of the troops a substitute for responsible policies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks5jan05,0,3861284.column?coll=la-home-commentary

The south has been a traditionally "poor" part of the nation, so I guess they thought that their best chances for recruitment lay in the areas of poverty..:grr:

why both believe that MORE liberals should get involved in the service.

Kerry was attacked by some on the left because he believes that college campuses that get federal dollars SHOULD have ROTC programs accessible at their campuses - they didn't get that his reason was not to militarize the student body or to propagandize them to support war, but to get more thoughtful and progressive voices INTO the officer ranks of the military.

That's why Kerry always disagreed with liberal campuses pushing against any officer training at their campuses. It's promoting the tough dove mentality instead of the shoot-em-all hawk mentality.

Just because they are now polling differently about the war and troop strength does not make them Dems. They just hate George Bush. They can not/ will not make the connection to party.

Gen. George Marshall thought that active military should not be allowed to vote at all. He feared they would become a voting block and a lobbying force for one political party or the other to the great detriment of the country. A very wise man.

somehow it's more 'macho' to be a Republican needs to be exposed for the grotesque folly it is, and knocked on the head very, very hard. Starting of course with the media.

And next time the lad with the bow tie sneers that most men vote Republican (wow, how that must have changed if it was ever true..!), the other guy should say, "So you're an authority on machismo, are you? Well, well... who'd a thunk?" Quite apart from anything else it's a gross insult to the intelligence of the enlisted troops to make such an accusation.

for example, famously served, whle W didn't stay out the Guard. And then there's Five-Deferment Dick. Chickenhawks!

is Republican CHICKEN HAWKS at the top of the Republican power pyramid.

Of course the writer missed two factors of why the Military saw the Republicans as their saviors

1.- The Johnson Administration abused the active duty military to the point that career officers saw dems as their enemies... the current generation of officers is suffering the same or actually worst under a REPUBLICAN President... the lesson of the day should be that politicians of both parties can be bad for the service, but the lesson of the day is that Republicans will abuse them... it will take at least a generation for these boys and girls to get over the current abuse and the army is broken. Army officers tend to be loyal to the initiation above anything else...

2.- the 1980s expansion of the service under Reagan led to the natural sucking up of all troops, who saw their real incomes grow, even though Reagan never approved a pay raise... but every time a troop made rank, which was common, they made more money.

than when he took office. As always the Cheap Labor Repugs short the military with pay raises. Reagon did, Bush I and Bush II. Clinton gave them the most.

bring them home to little or no follow-up medical care, along with usurious student loans, while insulting and lying about actual war veterans, mocking at your national convention Purple Heart recipients, and arresting a Gold Star mother", well, then, I guess Republicans are pro-military!