The Military Matters
Program News | Posted Nov 28, 2007
The Military Matters
By Scott Dodds
Issue date: 11/28/07 Section: Op-Ed
This Saturday, the Tufts Democrats, in conjunction with the Alliance Linking Leaders in Education and the Services (ALLIES), will host their annual Issues of the Future Symposium, "The Challenges and Dilemmas of Civil-Military Relations in the 21st Century." A plethora of speakers will address this most important of issues, and I encourage anyone remotely interested to attend and hear from the experts.
Shameless plug aside, the future shape of the United States' military will profoundly affect not only our men and women in uniform, but our nation's ability to deal with a host of new challenges as well.
The Democratic Party - as well as progressives, liberals and others on the political left - needs to do a better job of communicating with and participating in the more conservative military. Through increased communication, progressives can work to offer to our servicemen and women and the nation something that is both needed and currently missing: a real debate on the future of the military that produces a coherent plan we can all stand behind.
How can Democrats and progressives become more successful in talking to the military? A nice start would be to not pull stunts like MoveOn.org's "General Betray-us" ad, which show a lack of respect for the military and look, from a certain point of view, rather traitorous.
Any of this kind of vitriolic, anti-military or unrealistic "Withdraw Now!" kind of behavior breaks down the relationship between the progressive and the military, building a wall in its place.
Instead, progressives should continue to support our troops as many do already, through care packages, donations and proclamations of solidarity. Supporting our troops that are on the ground is not an endorsement of the policies; rather, it is a sign of respect and appreciation.
Second, the Democratic camp can better discuss and highlight values they share with the military. They can return to the ideals of service and sacrifice so eloquently propagated by President John F. Kennedy.
Both the military and the progressive ideology seek to take the nation to a better place; however, it takes action to get there. In some form, this nation needs to be asked to do what the Bush administration has never asked us to do: sacrifice in some way alongside our soldiers in their struggles.
Democrats should continue to focus on policies that help military members get what they need to do their jobs. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Improvement Act of 2007. The bill is cosponsored by other Democrats like Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and is aimed at improving mental health care for veterans.
Additionally, the military's equipment, pay and compensation could still be far higher than they are. War is a monumental stress on both the personal and financial lives of those who fight. The Rumsfeldian trimmed-down, mechanized army is turning out not to be able to do the jobs of counter-insurgency and nation building.
Moreover, beyond all of this internal tinkering and adjusting of mindsets, what the Democratic Party really needs to do is present a plan for our nation's foreign policy future and give the military its rightful and meaningful purpose in that grander picture.
So far, the party has seemed content to rail against the Bush administration's black-and-white world view and its incompetence. They have called for increased diplomacy. I do not want to diminish the serious issues with the current administration's framework or to denigrate diplomacy, but this kind of negativity and nitpicking simply will not cut it.
That being said, a new foreign policy vision should contain more nuance and less aggressive rhetoric. Refraining from calling other nations evil as well as refraining from combining all terrorist groups under one umbrella (although often they are related) will allow us more maneuverability to take advantage of weaknesses and divisions among difficult states and groups. The less overbearing and imperialistic we seem, the less other nations will balance against us, and the less we'll seem like the evil Satan that inspires terrorism.
Of course, military action and the use of force should still hold a prominent place in this vision. The threshold for its use, however, should be much higher. The short-term benefits of overthrowing governments and meddling in the affairs of others, especially without international support for doing so, seem to always fall far below the long-term scars left by such actions (for example, Iranian hatred of our 1956 coup, Vietnam and now Iraq).
Furthermore, through such a vision, the military will also receive a sharper sense of moral purpose and drive from missions of clearer purpose and rightness that come when this nation really faces a direct and imminent threat to its security. Democratizing other nations by force - however neat in theory - appears to not be quite as easy as we'd hope, and should not be viewed as a reason to invade.
Creating the new civil-military and political-military dialogue necessary to get these new ideas across in an elegant and unified way will be no easy task. It is something that needs to begin at the undergraduate level. Since the repeal of the draft, we are not all affected by the demands of our national security as we once were - but we still need to make efforts to understand those security issues.
Forums such as this Saturday's can help us get there. For the sake of our nation's security, our ability to accomplish our goals abroad, as well as the task of properly providing for those who risk their lives for them, it is vital that we focus on this vision despite its difficulty. This Saturday, the Tufts Democrats, in conjunction with the Alliance Linking Leaders in Education and the Services (ALLIES), will host their annual Issues of the Future Symposium, "The Challenges and Dilemmas of Civil-Military Relations in the 21st Century." A plethora of speakers will address this most important of issues, and I encourage anyone remotely interested to attend and hear from the experts.
Shameless plug aside, the future shape of the United States' military will profoundly affect not only our men and women in uniform, but our nation's ability to deal with a host of new challenges as well.
The Democratic Party - as well as progressives, liberals and others on the political left - needs to do a better job of communicating with and participating in the more conservative military. Through increased communication, progressives can work to offer to our servicemen and women and the nation something that is both needed and currently missing: a real debate on the future of the military that produces a coherent plan we can all stand behind.
How can Democrats and progressives become more successful in talking to the military? A nice start would be to not pull stunts like MoveOn.org's "General Betray-us" ad, which show a lack of respect for the military and look, from a certain point of view, rather traitorous.
Any of this kind of vitriolic, anti-military or unrealistic "Withdraw Now!" kind of behavior breaks down the relationship between the progressive and the military, building a wall in its place.
Instead, progressives should continue to support our troops as many do already, through care packages, donations and proclamations of solidarity. Supporting our troops that are on the ground is not an endorsement of the policies; rather, it is a sign of respect and appreciation.
Second, the Democratic camp can better discuss and highlight values they share with the military. They can return to the ideals of service and sacrifice so eloquently propagated by President John F. Kennedy.
Both the military and the progressive ideology seek to take the nation to a better place; however, it takes action to get there. In some form, this nation needs to be asked to do what the Bush administration has never asked us to do: sacrifice in some way alongside our soldiers in their struggles.
Democrats should continue to focus on policies that help military members get what they need to do their jobs. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Improvement Act of 2007. The bill is cosponsored by other Democrats like Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and is aimed at improving mental health care for veterans.
Additionally, the military's equipment, pay and compensation could still be far higher than they are. War is a monumental stress on both the personal and financial lives of those who fight. The Rumsfeldian trimmed-down, mechanized army is turning out not to be able to do the jobs of counter-insurgency and nation building.
Moreover, beyond all of this internal tinkering and adjusting of mindsets, what the Democratic Party really needs to do is present a plan for our nation's foreign policy future and give the military its rightful and meaningful purpose in that grander picture.
So far, the party has seemed content to rail against the Bush administration's black-and-white world view and its incompetence. They have called for increased diplomacy. I do not want to diminish the serious issues with the current administration's framework or to denigrate diplomacy, but this kind of negativity and nitpicking simply will not cut it.
That being said, a new foreign policy vision should contain more nuance and less aggressive rhetoric. Refraining from calling other nations evil as well as refraining from combining all terrorist groups under one umbrella (although often they are related) will allow us more maneuverability to take advantage of weaknesses and divisions among difficult states and groups. The less overbearing and imperialistic we seem, the less other nations will balance against us, and the less we'll seem like the evil Satan that inspires terrorism.
Of course, military action and the use of force should still hold a prominent place in this vision. The threshold for its use, however, should be much higher. The short-term benefits of overthrowing governments and meddling in the affairs of others, especially without international support for doing so, seem to always fall far below the long-term scars left by such actions (for example, Iranian hatred of our 1956 coup, Vietnam and now Iraq).
Furthermore, through such a vision, the military will also receive a sharper sense of moral purpose and drive from missions of clearer purpose and rightness that come when this nation really faces a direct and imminent threat to its security. Democratizing other nations by force - however neat in theory - appears to not be quite as easy as we'd hope, and should not be viewed as a reason to invade.
Creating the new civil-military and political-military dialogue necessary to get these new ideas across in an elegant and unified way will be no easy task. It is something that needs to begin at the undergraduate level. Since the repeal of the draft, we are not all affected by the demands of our national security as we once were - but we still need to make efforts to understand those security issues.
Forums such as this Saturday's can help us get there. For the sake of our nation's security, our ability to accomplish our goals abroad, as well as the task of properly providing for those who risk their lives for them, it is vital that we focus on this vision despite its difficulty.
Scott Dodds is a sophomore majoring in political science.