It's painful to admit, but my least favorite columnist--the New York Times' resident smarmy warmonger and neocon Bush/McCain shill, William Kristol--seems to have echoed a section of my latest blog on the Huffington Post and reprinted it today in the Times.
In one way I'm sorry I brought up the matter of Obama and the military. I also wish that the Obama people would listen to military-friendly/Obama-friendly people, such as Senator Webb and bystanders rooting for Obama, including me, before our enemies riff endlessly on the progressive camp's blind spot related to our military.
There is still time to change perceptions. Getting this right is more important than trying to keep this discussion out of the public's (or Kristol's) mind. The subject is there anyway.
In, "What Obama Left Out" Kristol had this to say about Senator Obama's Memorial Day weekend commencement speech that he gave at Wesleyan University:
...[S]triking is Obama's sin of omission... [H]e goes on to detail -- at some length -- the "so many ways to serve" that are available "at this defining moment in our history." There's the Peace Corps, there's renewable energy, there's education, there's poverty -- there are all kinds of causes you can take up "should you take the path of service."
But there's one obvious path of service Obama doesn't recommend -- or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: "At a time of war, we need you to work for peace." And, we face "big challenges like war and recession." But there's nothing about serving your country in uniform.It can't be that the possibility of military service as an admirable form of public service didn't occur to Obama. Only the day before, Obama had been squabbling with John McCain about veterans' benefits. He said then, "Obviously I revere our soldiers and want to make sure they are being treated with honor and respect."...
As a military parent and Obama supporter, as well as someone who has written books on the recruitment, class and the military issue, Kristol's shot is frustrating to me. Why couldn't the Obama people open their eyes and ears months ago, and get this right?
Why can't progressives keep one thing straight: military service is NOT service to the Republicans or W. Bush but to our country. Obama handed a neocon warmonger an easy target for no good reason. The military is as much to do with Obama as with McCain or anyone else. It belongs to Democrats as much as to Republicans.
(NOTE: Senator Clinton does no better re: the military. This isn't about Obama but about progressives in general going up against cynical Republicans. Do we want to win or not?)
The irony is supreme: Kristol masquerades as a patriot extolling service in the military, and yet the Republicans who sent my son to a mistaken war-of-choice, from Bush on down (or is it Bush on up?) had--unlike me--no skin in the game. Where were Bush's military-age daughters? Where were Cheney's kids? Where are Kristol's rich Republican friend's children?
As both a military parent of a Marine, a former lifelong Republican, who re-registered as an independent (in disgust with Bush and the Republicans, a phony war based on lies, Rovian crap et al), and as an avid Obama supporter, I've been trying to point out to the Obama folks that like many progressive people the Obama campaign seems to have a tin ear/blind spot when relating to the military. This will cost us all if McCain wins because of this. It will cost America. It will cost our military men and women most of all.
If the Democrats can't shake the idea that they are not to be trusted on national security issues, Obama might well lose to McCain. We'll face the ruin of war-without-end and economic and environmental meltdown. We'll face the liars staying in charge of Washington. We'll empower the homophobic religious right--again. We'll face the continued loss of respect around the world and the danger that poses to all of us, including our troops.
Do progressives get it? Not if you judge by many of the 100 plus responses to my latest blog on this subject.
Here are several reader's response (out of many more like them) to my latest Huff post asking Obama to speak out on military service and include it with his other worthy lists, the Peace Corps etc. of ways we can step up to help our country. (By the way I read all responses to my blogs, learn from them, and am grateful for all of them, even the occasional insults. No problem, fair enough!):
In a time of hyper blind nationalism, with imperialist wars being started against countries that neither threatened nor attacked the U.S., when our military schools include leaders who call themselves Christians and teach the young people that God wants them to kill Muslims, when our top leaders in D.C. lie to start wars, lie about the costs, use the military as muscle for corporations that want to steal assets from third world countries... I'd say no one should join the military.
Another writes:
I don't blame Obama for not mentioning the military. In my opinion the military is absolutely stupid.
Another writes:
Maybe the military can be considered "service to your country" when poor people aren't coerced into it thru poverty, the need to be made "a man" and the lies fed them to them by the military about seeing the world, great training and benefits, and how they are heroes just for signing up.
What is interesting is how these responses--and they each contain a nugget of truth if wrong in other ways--nevertheless reinforce the idea that, A) if these are Obama's voters, maybe they shouldn't ever be allowed near our military, and, B) give the impression of a permanent opposition that never actually expects to be in power.
What if Obama is President? Will it always be someone else's military? Will the military, like the flag remain the sole "property" of Republicans by default?
Unless you are a pacifist--and that is a respectable thing to be--think about the implications of the statements above. Last time I checked our military was yours and mine too. If it's broken fix it. That is how democracy works. You just don't walk away and pretend that this is all someone else's problem.
Back on March 6 I wrote another Huff blog. "I'm Pro-Military So I Support Senator Obama (and I Have Some Advice for Him On Winning the Votes of the Military Family)" I wrote:
Obama was right on Iraq from the start. Moreover because of his serendipitous ethnic, social and political background, Obama is uniquely positioned to reach out to the world and help restore America's image and thus make all our men and women in uniform somewhat safer. Thus a vote for Obama is the true pro-military vote. And it is also a vote for honor because honor rests on truth.
Nevertheless if Obama is to win the military family vote and more importantly to be an effective commander-in-chief, he needs to convince the military family (and countless moderate Republicans and independents) that their perception that Democrats are reflexively antimilitary is wrong... So here are some ideas for Senator Obama to consider.First: Avoid the usual condescending liberal language when speaking about the military...
Second: You need to talk positively about military service...
Third: When you talk about your program for helping college students financially and say that they should owe their country something in return, you list organizations such as the Peace Corps as the sort of group they should join to "give something back." Add military service to your list...
I sent that blog to every person with any "degrees of separation" to the Obama people that I could think of. Then last week on May 29 I posted another blog, the one Kristol seems to have read:
"The Obama/Progressive Blind Spot That Just Might Hand McCain The White House"
I wrote:
It pained me to see Senator Obama miss a big opportunity at Wesleyan College. A few days before Memorial Day he delivered the commencement speech filling in for Senator Kennedy. Senator Obama mentioned serving our country and used the word service many times. He spoke of joining the Peace Corps. He talked about the good it does one's soul to be part of "something bigger than one's self." However, Senator Obama never said -- even once -- that one good option for service -- and for being part of something bigger than ourselves -- includes volunteering to serve in our military. Why?
By definition a blind spot is something overlooked because it isn't on the gut-level radar screen of an individual or group -- even if they think they have it covered. In other words, they just don't get it, no ill will, just non-connection...
I repeated some of the points I'd made earlier in March, about how and why Obama (and Democrats in general) need to speak to and about our military. The Kristol column signals that the Republicans didn't need anyone to remind them to state the obvious: Obama (like Hillary Clinton) is needlessly open to the Republican smear machine on everything to do with the military because the military still seems to be the "other" only to be mentioned on special occasions, like Memorial Day, but not spoken of as part of the everyday ways to serve our country.
It is one thing to be attacked for core principles, another to have opponents take advantage of needless mistakes or worse, thoughtless omissions. Senator Obama has proved himself to be sensitive to what's important to other people, to evangelical's concerns for instance. Now he needs to take a moment and think about the signals he's sending--or not sending--to the military family.
Obama has proved that he actually cares about our troops because--unlike Bush and McCain--Obama backs Webb's new GI bill. Obama also cares about keeping America strong because--unlike Bush and McCain--Obama spoke out and said a war-of-choice in Iraq was a mistake when it was costly to do so. Now he needs to include asking people to volunteer for service in the military along with his other points made in most speeches.
If he wins in November Obama will--like it or not--be commander-in-chief of the military, not the Peace Corps. He will be the top of the recruiting chain of command that all-too-often leads to local malls and high schools in working class neighborhoods, rather than to top colleges. Fairness starts from the top.
Sometimes perception becomes reality. Obama cares about our troops more than Bush ever did and more than endless-war-McCain does. Obama just needs to say what he thinks and has said, but more often and in places people don't expect so it gets noticed.
Note to the Obama folks: There is time to get the military service equation right. Please do. Spike the Republican smear machine guns now.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Democrats were not always this way. My father (a WWII vet, and lifetime Union member) was a democrat, but when it came the military in time of war, he was to the right of Genghis Khan -- but he was in the Pat Buchanan school of thought on foreign entanglements. Democrats once also were generally pro-family, would not have dreamed of promoting a redefinition of marriage, and pro-life. It would be nice if Democrats started running candidates loved America, did not look down on traditional values, and opposed killing babies... then we would have far better choices on other issues, but as it is I think you are destined to be disappointed with were Obama would take America.
The reason he should speak with that particular demographic is they have made the decision to be career military professionals, but they are not yet careerists. He will also find the reasons people stay in the military are very different than the reasons they joined the military. Once anyone starts that conversation, they will probably see that much of the mental shorthand they have used to think about the military is oversimplified and crude because it draws largely from the themes and messages used to recruit people into initial service. Also, the people who stay are very different from the people who joined; they are older, more experienced in life, more mature. They may be combat veterans and they may have families. Those are both life changing processes, because neither can be described as singular events.
If you are asking Obama to address military service to a group of college graduates then I think you are misunderstanding the point of his campaign.
He obviously has a deep respect and honor towards our military service people...(GI Bill) However, he is running for change, and I don't think encouraging young college grads to serve in the military is a part of that change. He would rather they pursue more peaceful options - ie: peace corps, volunteer at soup kitchens)
We need our young people here, at home helping us to build this country back up to it's former greatness...and fighting in a war that was unethical, illegal and not wanted by half the country, well I don't think that's doing any of us any good.
As a fellow Obama supporter, I could not disagree with you more. You're not getting it. There's nothing wrong with military service, and being in the military is not equivalent with unethical war. Do you think our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan do nothing but roam the streets looking for random terrorists to kill? They are helping protect neighborhoods. They are building relationships with the residents, and working with them to improve their way of life. The mission is flawed and they have been thrust in an unmanageable situation, but they are still trying to do their best and still trying to help people as much as they can.
Try getting down from your high horse once in a while.
He should talk about JFKs service, LBJ's service, Carter's service and make the point that Mil service is a high and noble calling....I am a mil vet and I get the sense that Obama things that his supporters are either too good or too smart to stoop to mil service. Then they treat the vets like victims - rather than informed patriot volunteers. This is not an either or question.....The Peace Corp and the Marine Corp both have their place....but without a Marine Corp...there would have never been a Peace Corps.
My partisan instincts hope Obama can't make this pivot - and he will lose. But for the good of the country I hope he does and gives the military its proper respect....And oh. this is a lot more than the GI Bill smokescreen.....Its about valuing the militaries contribution to this country
National Security is a Republican myth that is now getting its proper comeuppance as every day a new revelation shows how inadequate they are in protecting us. Asking anyone to join the military under such an incompetent, uncaring and selfish administration is a form of Russian Roulette that no young person should be subjected to.
National service (including military service) should be an obligation for all with no deferments. That in itself would solve lots of problems.
I agree. Everybody wants something for nothing.
There's your garden variety grunt and then there's the Pentagon. If the leadership had been as competent as the grunts in Iraq, we'd either never have gone there or we'd be long done by now. The nation supports the grunts and distrusts the Pentagon. How many tin horn South American dictators has the Pentagon propped up?
How did the Republicans wind up as pro-military, You know, the people that don''t back the GI bill, who gave the grunts uninhabitable living quarters and substandard medical care? The people who've billed disabled soldiers for equipment and portions of enlistment bonuses? How does this make Republicans more pro-military?
One of the most derogatory questions military men and women are asked by polite, well-intentioned civilians from across the political spectrum is, “You seem awfully smart to be in the Army (or the Marines, or the Navy, or the Air Force).” It’s infuriating, but it usually leads to a longer conversation about what we value and how we choose to live our values.
It says a lot about a person’s world view on what they say after that conversation. Conservatives (with the exception of Ben Stein) tend to walk away dismissive saying things like, “I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Many progressives walk away from that conversation saying something along the lines, “We are blessed as a nation to have people like you willing to serve.”
I wish it were true in this case that actions speak louder than words, but I think this needs to be talked up, talked up, and talked up some more.
Much More...
Military service has traditionally been the province of the poor and of the wealthy. The poor often enlist because they have few other choices. The wealthy enlist because it's an honoured service and good for later political goals. Traditionally, middle class folks don't enlist in large numbers unless there's an "important" war to be fought, like WWII.
We need to change not just how we perceive the military, but what we send them to do. We need to do more humanitarian work. We need to have the Army, Air Force, and Navy transporting food and medicine to people who need it, in areas where non-military humanitarians can't get the job done. We need to have the Marines leading the way for those other ventures, and we need to have the Coast Guard do what they do so well - rescuing the lost at sea.
Obama should address military issues better, and liberals need to remember that the military serves the country when we need fighters. But we also need to use our military in ways that the rest of the world respects rather than what we've been doing lately - sending them off to kill innocents. Reagan co-opted the military for the right. We, the people, need to take it back.
So there.
SciGuy, where were you during the tsunami relief efforts? The U.S. military was a major presence in providing medical care and reconstruction. They docked a hospital ship just offshore and provided desperately needed care. Just yesterday, Sec. Def. Gates said we've had FOUR ships docked off Myanmar full of medical supplies, food, and fresh water, but the junta nutcase govt. won't let our guys in and he may have to withdraw the aid ships. In Iraq, during my son's unit's FOURTH deployment, after the insurgents quit trying to kill them, they spent the whole time building schools and helping restore services to Fallujah.
The kind of humanitarian work you mention is done all the time, and has always been so. Where you been buddy?
Sorry that wasn't in my original post - I ran out of words and chopped it away to hit that 250. :-)
Wesleyan is a liberal arts school of less than 3000 highly selected students.
Not everyone needs to be supremely unadaptable like you two bulls in the china shop pushing for the only perspectives you can muster out of your terror.
Talk about spreading panic, sheesh. Calm down, the both of you. If your diatribes have sewn any doubt, I recommend to your victims they investigate for themselves.
I too understand your frustration. Don't fret. After leaving the movie theatre with my daughter on Friday,
in sunny Oceanside, California, 2 miles from the front gate of Camp Pendleton I was quite surprised.....
I ran into a few young ladies (28-30) and we started talking about the movie. (Sex and the City)
I asked them (as I ask everybody) if they were going to vote in November. They replied "hell yes".
"our husbands are in the Marine Corps." I said to myself, stop, no more, don't say anything, they are going to be Mc. Same groupies or something. I just replied, "that is good, we need a change." They looked at each other and said to me "yes, we are voting for Obama and SO OUR OUR HUSBANDS"!!
I thought I was going to pass out. I was so happy to hear this. This is not '00 or '04. The military has changed in a positive way from what I have seen and heard here in the last year. My daughter who wanted nothing to do with politics just registered to vote. I always thought of her husband as a Kool Aid drinker.....he is there in Iraq now. I do not think either one is going to vote for George bush's third term.....Now to work on my son who is in Al Asad, and my daughter in law @ Miramar.....work for me, yet to be done:)
Semper Fi!
macho types or the poor , uneducated & desperate who have to do whatever it takes
to survive."
Not only are your comments based in ignorance, they are extremely offensive!
You paint with a broad brush that leaves no room for the truly heroic efforts put forth
by average men and women who feel the need to enter the service of our country.
NOT ALL are uneducated!
NOT ALL are desparate!
NOT ALL are poor!
NOT ALL are macho types!
NOT ALL are steroid popping!
NOT ALL are gun crazy!
And thank God they aren't, or, we'd be in worse shape than we are already!
I come from a Democratic family that embraced military service over the decades:
Grandfather - Navy - WW1
Father - Master Sergeant - Army - WWll
Uncle - Navy - Submarine Gunner - WWII
"Big Brother" - Army - Vietnam (killed in action)
Cousin - Navy
Brother - Army - National Guard
Son-in-Law - Navy - Gulf War
Step-Grandson - Marines
Step-Grandson - Army
Step-Grandaughter-Army
Love-of-my-Life - Army - Special Forces - Vietnam, Gulf War, retired and just finished two
year tour in Afghanistan training the Afghan army non-coms
None of the above fit into your sterotypical idea of who serves in the military.
YOUR COMMENTS DISGUST ME!
But, I ask you, Mr. Schaeffer, how can anyone suggest joining the military now ... to go to Iraq? I know your son has chosen to do so, but HE made that decision. I do not believe anyone, at this time, should suggest joining the military. That is, not for this administration. Our military should not be in Iraq.
I am proud to say that my daughter is a midshipman at the Naval Academy. She does not support Bush or his illegal war, but she has a desire to serve the true interests of our country. We both expect that her career will begin under a Democratic president.
I still have very close, lifelong friends in the Corps and Navy. I'm very proud of their service. They are, at this point, quite senior officers. They are truly consumate professionals of the highest possible character. They serve to protect and defend the Constitution. They follow the lawful orders of the civilian, political leaders.
My opinion is that not one hair on one head of any Marine, Seaman, Soldier or Airman should have been shed for the Iraqi people. If they want to throw off their dictators or have a civil war, it's no concern of ours.
On the other hand, I appreciate the need to demonstrate that America will not tolerate attacks. We have a target recognition problem - Bin Laden is still at large.
There is only one way for a congressman or senator to reflect their true disagreement with the current policies - vote against the funding of the war. None of the three current candidates have done so.
If the war is not funded, then choices about the mission would have to be made.
Action speaks much louder than words. All the jibber-jabber, all the talk about change counts for nothing. Their votes signal their real commitment - they all support the war.
Ahem. NO KIDDING!
"There is only one way for a congressman or senator to reflect their true disagreement with the current policies - vote against the funding of the war. None of the three current candidates have done so."
That's a point that I've also made on these forums, multiple times. It's Obama's unwillingness to vote NO on the Iraq war spending that bothers me. Frankly, I'm surprised that there are people who want to hear him talking UP troop levels, at a time like this.
And, before that tired old canard comes up once again -- a vote against funding the Iraq War is NOT a vote against our soldiers. It's a vote against having those soldiers IN IRAQ.