"Keep in mind, it wasn't too terribly long ago that Democratic politicians simply weren't supposed to say that Petraeus, Gates, and intelligence leaders were wrong about national security matters. Indeed, for Dems to say that they knew better than Petraeus, Gates, and intelligence leaders -- that their judgment was superior to military leaders' -- was grounds for mockery, if not condemnation.
And yet, Obama has spent a year following the guidance of military leaders, and Republicans have spent a year breaking with the judgment of the military establishment."
He continues:
Imagine if the situations were reversed, and Democratic lawmakers were on the opposite side of the Commander in Chief, the Centcom commander, the Republican Defense Secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- in the midst of two wars. Might we hear a little more talk about why Dems were at odds with the U.S. military establishment?
And if so, why isn't the GOP break with the military a bigger deal?
We are back in the simple-mindedness of the GOP and their base, I think. Their narrative is that Republicans are more patriotic, and I have had conservatives actually tell me that. They certainly believe that Republicans are more supportive of the military. When you believe something to be so true that you never question it (Republicans are more moral), then you simply never question it when facts intrude. The truth, after all, has a well known liberal bias.
4 comments:
Who can attack the military? Is it partison or not. I think that the most important thing is that all American's support our troops, but after that it is vital to use constructive and not desctructive thoughts if you have any qualms at all.
what is the bible?
But we don't live in a military dictatorship, right? I am not suggesting that we badmouth people who put their life on the line, but just because someone puts on a military uniform does not put them above criticism. Yet, when democrats have dared criticize military leaders or criticize individual troops, their patriotism has come into question. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be immune to such charges.
I like Noam Chomsky's framing of supporting the [line] troops but crucifying their strategic leadership. Republican talking heads have propagated this bizarre equivocation of "troops" so that the word means both "the Pentagon leadership" and "the heroic low-ranking soldiers who live in your neighborhood." For some reason, many people who have yellow bumper stickers seem to think that criticizing Rumsfeld for not allocating enough armored Humvees to Iraq is also an attack on the grieving mothers of soldiers who died when IEDs exploded under their unarmored Humvees.
Or, more accurately, that's true when a Democrat criticizes the Pentagon. As the OP points out, Republicans disagreeing with the military leadership is not just okay, but their patriotic duty.
Absolutely, Leighton. It always amazed me that we were the ones accused of being anti-troops for criticizing Bush for over-stretching the military, stop loss, torture, etc.
perhaps we can agree, kbrown, that constructive criticism means standing up against bad leadership--military and civilian--and also calling the troops themselves when they torture or commit atrocities. Seems like those are the duties of Americans, but the military has been, like the flag, coopted as a purely conservative icon.
Post a Comment