What Progressives Have in Common with the Military

What Progressives Have in Common with the Military

By Lorelei Kelly, In These Times. Posted January 30, 2007.

(snipped)

November's vote provides a timely opening to begin this conversation. With a new Democratic majority in Congress and the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, liberals must see past their anger over Iraq and grab the opportunity to learn from an unaccustomed source. Building relationships with military professionals will pay huge policy dividends when the time comes to pursue fundamental change on national security priorities.

The cost of the war has now passed half a trillion dollars--on top of a $400 billion plus defense budget. A more rational budget will soon become imperative, and progressives can be in the vanguard instead of on the margin by including real military needs in their list of spending priorities before diverting the conversation back to domestic issues. They can also consistently de-link defense spending from war spending--after Iraq, the Army will need to be rebuilt after its experience in Iraq. The rise of a cohort of military advocates from the left would mark an important change: Confident progressive voices joining the debate over the appropriate mission of American armed forces.

Such allies are needed: Despite their ability to wield tremendous physical force, the military is vulnerable when it comes to protecting itself in the domestic policy process. The armed services' professional ethic forbids interference in political decision-making. Hence their fate is often influenced most by those poised to gain in the short-term, either financially or politically, and who encounter no similar professional barriers --i.e., defense industry lobbyists, members of Congress and an executive branch obsessed by domestic politics.

This strategy is not unrealistic. Today's antiwar movement is leagues more sophisticated than the one that ended the Vietnam war. Today's liberal activist has learned how to be anti-war without being anti-warrior.

What's more, liberal philosophy shares many values with the military: looking after the general welfare, shared risk, sacrifice for common goals and long-term planning. Liberals value public service, and the military is our largest public institution. We also share many other areas of concern:




International human rights law: U.S. military lawyers are human rights champions for Guantánamo prisoners and for the Geneva Conventions.


International treaties: The U.S. Navy is one of the strongest advocates for the Law of the Sea.


Nuclear arms control: The military generally finds nuclear weapons unusable.


Conflict resolution: The Air Force has a prize-winning office of dispute resolution.


Renewable energy: The U.S. military is the largest energy consumer in the country.


AIDS prevention: The Defense Department has an extensive program to help foreign militaries.



Yet, Congress continues to drain billions from budget coffers to pay for Cold War programs like nuclear weapons and missile defense. The immediate military needs are more obvious: low-tech items like body armor, and human resource skills like language education.

(snipped)

Read more here ===>

:hug:

I regret not posting some sort of considered analysis of the ideas raised in this article, but I'm sick with some kind of nasty bug and my brain feels like congealed oatmeal.

I will say, however, that I've come across many fine thinkers from military backgrounds in my years of traveling around the internets; and I absolutely agree with author that there are fertile discussions to be had and worthwhile connections to be forged between at least the educated officer class and progressives.

Reaching out to these people is a superb idea. I fervently hope it catches on.

Best wishes,
sw