Back in the early 90's during the 'Gays in the Military' debate, Rush defined for his audience what the role of the military was. As with most things Rush, he put it in pretty simple terms. "The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things." And across the spectrum of 'things said by Rush', this is one of those rare occasions where it lands on the 'that one's not so bad' side of the equation.
Of course at the time he was using this definition to make a point about unit cohesion. The military, Rush explained, was no place for social experimentation. He was protecting our men in uniform from the horrors of witnessing one of their squad mates running limp-wristed across the battlefield to smother a fallen comrade with kisses.
The absurdity of the idea is just as wrong as the idea that the military is no place for social experimentation. The military has always been on the front lines of integration. From the Civil War to World War II, the struggle for civil rights began with the interaction between black and white units. It started when real world experience dispelled the stereotypes that each 'side' had about the other.
But back to Rush's original definition. At the end of the day the purpose of the U.S. military is still to kill the right people or break the right things to protect this nation from harm. Like it or not, it's what they do, and we do it better than anyone else in the world. But while it's a great definition for what a military should do, it's a pretty crappy definition of what a police force should do. The role of a police force is to protect the innocent, serve the public trust, and uphold the law (this definition provided not by Rush, but by Robocop). Police forces that apply Rush's military definition to police duties generally belong not to democracies, but to dictatorships. And the use of the military as such has generally separated our successful wars from our less successful "police actions."
Rush's definition also helps explain the difference between 'us' and 'them' when it comes to our attitudes about military spending. Dittoheads want more, better, faster, and more efficient methods for killing people and breaking things. Bunker-buster nukes, Crusader artillery, AC-130 gunships and the like get their nipples all hard. But when we try to say maybe we could give our troops the up-armored Hummers they need, they bristle. "Armor? Hell, you can't kill anyone with armor!" And when we ask if maybe we could make the VA a priority to take care of our injured men and women when they come back form combat operations, they blench. "You can't use the VA to break anything. What's the point in spending money there!?"
And so we are where we are today. The right still retains their home field advantage in public perception when it comes to being hawks. But within the context of Rush's definition something else is also clear. They are the party of the military, but we are the party of the troops.