Soldier-Citizens To America's Rescue?

[PJABBER]

Up until 1970 it was almost unheard of that a political candidate did not have some background in the military that he or she could point to. This was the time of the WWII/Korea veterans, when the nation united to respond to the dual threats of fascism and communism.

Vietnam did not see such a universal acclaim for the service and the sacrifice of those who served in the military. But, in certain quarters, many recognized that these men, too, gave much and deserved special recognition for their love of country. And many of those veterans also chose to pursue political office.

The military went through a major re-birth in the post-Vietnam era. The professionals who remained after the draft era knew that the institutions they had committed their lives to required reform and rebuilding. Their story and how they went about it is well captured in a work like Rebuilding the Post-Vietnam U.S. Army - Press On! by General Donn A. Starry.

The result is readily apparent in the military successes that followed, and in the resultant democratizing of formerly despotic Iraq.

The United States has now been at war for a number of years. This war, waged on many fronts, has also seen heroes and those who have stepped up to the plate rather than sit on the sidelines. They are mostly unsung, for the overwhelmingly "liberal" national press has no real love for those who serve in uniform these days.

Some of these veterans are now taking that love for what America represents into the political arena.

Perhaps it is only natural that those who have led as non-commissioned and commissioned officers in the military would gravitate to further national service, including elected office.

Though these unconventional candidates learned different lessons in the variety of circumstances they individually faced overseas, they each took away something valuable - that all things worthwhile require hard effort and sacrifice.

This is a lesson, ignored in the easy come, easy go fiscal policies and profligate short sighted programs of the current Administration and the current Congress, so intent on ruinous spending without much of a care for the return on investment nor on how the expenditure will be repaid, which will now have to be faced by a new and more focused generation of political leaders.

In another thread we have a discussion on the number of black Republican candidates running for national office. This should really not be surprising, the recognition that the Democrat agenda is not going to deliver more than continuing dependencies on government welfare is well overdue.

In the following article, we have a first introduction to what looks like a new generation of political leadership springing not from an entrenched power base in Washington but from those who served on the battlefields of South-west Asia.

Soldier-Citizens to the Rescue?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Usually a handful of ex-soldiers seek political office every election cycle. But well over 20 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are running this fall for Congress alone. Almost all are riding a wave of public anger at incumbents over a profligate government and dishonest Wall Street -- and a general feeling that the current Democratic remedy has proven as bad as, or worse than, the recent Republican disease.

The shenanigans of the previously Republican-controlled Congress -- the "Culture of Corruption" -- simply continued under the congressional Democrat majority, thanks to the likes of Chris Dodd, William Jefferson, Eric Massa, Charles Rangel and the late John Murtha.

Reform candidate Barack Obama has run up more debt in 15 months than unpopular spendthrift George W. Bush did in eight years. Obama once talked of a new unity, but he has polarized America far more rapidly than did the cowboy-sounding "decider" Bush.

In other words, the public is desperate for civic-minded leaders who are untainted by Washington, but who have a proven record of competent service on behalf of the nation. If they are poor or haven't held office before -- apparently so much the better.

The current combat-veteran candidates certainly aren't the usual state legislators or congressional aides ready for career advancement. Neither are they anti-war liberals who flash their national-security credentials, nor one-issue hawks who want more defense spending. They don't claim that their combat experience guarantees good governance per se -- not after the examples of Murtha or disgraced Republican Duke Cunningham. And they aren't retired generals used to deference and the spotlight.

So other than a shared furor at out-of-control spending, government takeovers and corruption, the twenty-something soldier-citizen candidates are an odd bunch. Some are officers; others are enlisted men. A surprising number were wounded in combat.

The vast majority are running as Republicans and seem to have little if any money. They were not so much preselected by Republican operatives as pushed forward through grassroots and sometimes tea party support.

In New York's 20th Congressional District, retired Army Col. Chris Gibson -- four deployments to Iraq -- is a Ph.D., former West Point instructor and author of a book on civilian-military relations. He received a Purple Heart, and recently served in the Haitian relief effort. While Gibson, the warrior scholar, is running on smaller government and lower taxes, his main theme is a call for ethics, accountability and a return to the notion of the citizen-legislator who works in Washington, rather than works the Washington system.

Other veteran candidates are already well known. In Florida's 22nd Congressional District, decorated retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West was involved in a controversy seven years ago when he purportedly fired a pistol near an Iraqi prisoner who he believed had information regarding a planned ambush of West's battalion. West has MA degrees in military arts and sciences and in political science, and was wounded a few years ago while serving as a civilian advisor in Afghanistan. His theme also is ostensibly smaller, cleaner government, balanced budgets, strong national security and lower taxes.

For 30 years after 1865, almost no American could get elected to office without prior Union or Confederate Civil War service. And last century, being a World War II veteran was virtually mandatory for any congressional leader until about 1970.

But Iraq and Afghanistan are seen differently from the collective sacrifice and bipartisan efforts of past wars. Our current veterans usually fought in impossible circumstances, where friend and enemy were sometimes indistinguishable. The aims and means of their mission were often questioned -- with the public as against the difficult later stages of the wars as they once were for them in the easier beginning stages.

As a result, these veterans are not saying, "Vote for me for because I fought for you," as much as, "Vote me for because I did my duty even if some in this country questioned why one would."

We live in a wartime of economic crisis, crushing debt and endemic political corruption. Rules, obligations and laws don't seem to matter. Personal honor is an archaic, fossilized concept.

But suddenly, amid public malaise, dozens of nontraditional soldier-citizens have stepped forward out of the shadows to argue that right now in America, neither money nor incumbency matters as much as civic duty and the old idea of public service. And unlike most of us, they once put their lives on the line to prove just that.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

 

[HumblePie]

PJABBER,

Twitter is <---- that way.

 

[her209]

Some of these veterans are now taking that love for what America represents into the political arena.

Perhaps it is only natural that those who have led as non-commissioned and commissioned officers in the military would gravitate to further national service, including elected office.

It will be interesting to see who the public values more: the soldier who put his neck on the line being on the front lines or the soldier that is far from danger higher up the food chain. Too bad the soldier who has lost the most cannot run for office.

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER, you done delivered a GOP wet dream scenario that is an epic fail simply because many of those US military officers forgot to deliver an iota of progress in Afghanistan, and Iraqi democracy may be two miles wide and not more than an inch deep.

The one somewhat shining post Vietnam military doctrine was the Powell doctrine, and that was killed dead dead dead by the GOP in early 2003. If anything, the US military is now less honest than it was during the Vietnamese war and three times as demoralized by the antics of Rumsfeld. Vietnam progress was denominated in terms of filled body bags. Now we are happier to alienate entire regions, nations, and religions while PJABBER's citizen soldiers utter not one questioning peep on the wisdom of such policies.

Is that the leadership our nation needs now?

 

[cwjerome]

This is something that I have noticed also, although it's not surprising or unusual. A friend of mine at my unit is an Arizona representative and he is running for Congress. I recall many conversations with officers while in training environments who expressed interest in future public service. A few of them admitted that their being an officer was a stepping stone for public office.

LL, your titanic arrogance somehow continues to grow. Yes, you are obviously twice as smart as the sum total intelligence of every Soldier in the Army. Congrats

 

[PJABBER]

PJABBER, you done delivered a GOP wet dream scenario that is an epic fail simply because many of those US military officers forgot to deliver an iota of progress in Afghanistan, and Iraqi democracy may be two miles wide and not more than an inch deep.

The one somewhat shining post Vietnam military doctrine was the Powell doctrine, and that was killed dead dead dead by the GOP in early 2003. If anything, the US military is now less honest than it was during the Vietnamese war and three times as demoralized by the antics of Rumsfeld. Vietnam progress was denominated in terms of filled body bags. Now we are happier to alienate entire regions, nations, and religions while PJABBER's citizen soldiers utter not one questioning peep on the wisdom of such policies.

Is that the leadership our nation needs now?

You truly know nothing about the military, nor do you know history. You have, however, been completely brainwashed by your wholesale acceptance of lefty political revisionism.

Congratulations, you are the perfect stooge.

BTW, the specific candidates that Hanson points out quite clearly are not actually toeing the recent Republican line, though most of them are running for Republican nomination.

They seem to hearken back the historical line of the Radical Republicans of Lincoln's period than the moderate Republicanism of the recent past.

I would say that they represent a third and independent way. It is a perspective that is both familiar to and understood by the Republicans, while being completely outside the comprehension of lemming Dems.

 

[Danube]

I like Allen West. The media tries to slam him for being fined after a rough interrogation in Iraq but people end up liking him more once they know the circumstances


"The commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division on Friday accepted a U.S. military investigator's recommendation and ordered administrative action against Lt. Col. Allen West, who was accused of using improper methods to force information out of an Iraqi detainee...

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 4th Infantry's top general in Tikrit, could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial...

The case stems from an incident August 20 (2003) at a military base in Taji, just north of Baghdad, when West was interrogating an Iraqi policeman (Yahya Jhrodi Hamoody), who was believed to have information about a plot to assassinate West with an ambush on a U.S. convoy...


West said he also threatened to kill Hamoody. Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel.

Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.

West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.

"I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.

Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/

 

[Lemon law]

If we strip out personal attacks, the Cwjerome post may boil down to "A friend of mine at my unit is an Arizona representative and he is running for Congress. I recall many conversations with officers while in training environments who expressed interest in future public service. A few of them admitted that their being an officer was a stepping stone for public office."

But we must also note, that a career in the military is not the only stepping stone to a future career in public service. We have plenty of captains of industry, in a Bloomberg, a Meg Whitman taking that alternate route. Not to mention Movie Actors, professional sports stars, and gasp even a lowly community activists named Obama. Maybe creme rises to the top.

But going back to the PJABBER point of the past military leadership credentials as a requirement in the American civil war and immediate post WW2 was almost a requirement, we have to note two things. (1) That set of civil war and WW2 officers and servicemen were revered by the American because they really really brought home an American victory, and even better a long term peace. (2) That long term peace resulted only because we had military and non military leadership during both those wars with the wisdom and compassion to lift our fallen foes up gently.

In terms of winning the wars, we did that in weeks and months in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but without the missing in action compassion and wisdom, we get no peace, and military figures will not be revered in American politics.

Cwjerome can call my position titanically arrogant if he cares to, I prefer to say its an observable fact. Without personal honesty, there can be no compassion and wisdom. Or the mutual respect to build a lasting peace. The real miracles of our civil war and WW2.

 

[Danube]

In terms of winning the wars, we did that in weeks and months in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but without the missing in action compassion and wisdom, we get no peace, and military figures will not be revered in American politics.

I would say worrying too much about compassion made the war drag on. It was the surge among other things that finally settled things down. The military well and then the politicians and inept bureaucracies (State Dept etc) get involved and everything goes to hell.

 

[PJABBER]

But going back to the PJABBER point of the past military leadership credentials as a requirement in the American civil war and immediate post WW2 was almost a requirement, we have to note two things. (1) That set of civil war and WW2 officers and servicemen were revered by the American because they really really brought home an American victory, and even better a long term peace. (2) That long term peace resulted only because we had military and non military leadership during both those wars with the wisdom and compassion to lift our fallen foes up gently.

I rather think that peace comes about with complete military victory and the overwhelming domination of enemies. Anything that falls short of that results in a protraction of the required military effort and an uncertain "peace."

There was great dispute after the Civil War concluded as to how and how rapidly the South would be re-integrated into the Union. It wasn't all that easy and there was much acrimony.

WWII did not end on a peaceful note and the Germans were not welcome with open arms afterward. There was an extended transition in both West and East Germany after the partition. Japan also had to offer unconditional surrender and their transition was not all that easy either, nor were they accepted without reservation.

Even with unconditional surrender and massive armies in place, the transitions were protracted and difficult.

Iraq was conquered by a relatively small military force and there was nothing of the size of WWII armies to manage the aftermath. Considering how few allied forces occupied Iraq, the transition was a testament to the effectiveness of the civil military affairs effort that was put into place.

Gentle transitions? The Iraq transition is an example of a gentle transition that could have been entirely more effective with a more aggressive and dominant allied military presence to maintain the security of the country. That was fought tooth and nail by the libs and progressives and it is still being fought by those who insist we need to leave now and leave nothing behind. Perhaps people like you?

Same goes for Afghanistan, the "good and essential" war of the Democrats. The war that Obama promises to wage for only a short time so as to provide an incentive for the current corrupt government there to stand up and do the job or for the Taliban to wait out so that they, with crystal clarity, can come in and take over in the resultant power vacuum.

Elected government service from vets is a good thing, though it is no guarantee of competence or political position. One particularly good reason to choose a combat vet over a movie star for public office is that we always need to have those who have bled to remind us of the cost of errors and failures and, yes, why we do need to shed blood and treasure at times.

 

[Lemon law]

Danube may say, "I would say worrying too much about compassion made the war drag on. It was the surge among other things that finally settled things down. The military well and then the politicians and inept bureaucracies (State Dept etc) get involved and everything goes to hell."

But in so saying, you may understand nothing about Iraq. The GWB mini-surge was not only a busted play, it was too small to do anything. But the so called surge still gets the credit for the real reason, which was a small set of military officers who effectively drove a wedge between the Sunni insurgency and Al-Quida, and once the Sunnis quit attacking Shiite Mosques, the general violence level dropped all over Iraq. Ethnic cleansing was already a fait acompli by that time.

Sadly as an update, the Iraqis Shia militias are reorganizing in Iraq, the Sunnis and Kurds are worried about Shia Iraqi dominance, and there is a disputed election between Maliki and Alawi. To some great extent Iraq is a country that never should have been, and its still really explosive because zero political progress is evident post surge.

When the US leaves at the end of 2011, what will keep the lid on the Iraqi pressure cooker? And that question somewhat hits the PJABBER contention that, " I rather think that peace comes about with complete military victory and the overwhelming domination of enemies." Matter of fact, I do hope PJabber is correct on that Iraqi question, because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

But sadly time and events and not personal opinions will be the end arbiter of those Iraqi question.

 

[PJABBER]

Danube may say, "I would say worrying too much about compassion made the war drag on. It was the surge among other things that finally settled things down. The military well and then the politicians and inept bureaucracies (State Dept etc) get involved and everything goes to hell."

But in so doing, you may understand nothing about Iraq. The GWB mini-surge was not only a busted play, it was too small to do anything. But the so called surge still gets the credit for the real reason, which was a small set of military officers who effectively drove a wedge between the Sunni insurgency and Al-Quida, and once the Sunnis quit attacking Shiite Mosques, the general violence level dropped all over Iraq.

When the US leaves at the end of 2011, what will keep the lid on the Iraqi pressure cooker?

The surge was small in military terms but it was highly effective in showing that President Bush had the will to prosecute the war effort, even if the US press and and almost the entirety of the Democrats were crying that all was lost, woe is them.

It was this recognition that Bush, as commander in chief, had the will to win and tough it out, along with the clear contrast with Al Qaida terrorism, that led the Suunis to join forces with the Allies and move toward peace and stability.

Fighting a war without the will to win, to dominate the enemy, will always result in loss. You can conduct "hearts and minds" campaigns but if you forget the need for that iron hand in the velvet glove it will all be for naught.

That is, in a nutshell, the current criticism of Obama's foray into war and the retreat first Democrats. Saying you are going to fight for a short and limited time, no matter how hard and with however many temporary resources, is meaningless if you make clear that you will leave, no matter what, in a year. Any victories won will be short lived, all battles meaningless for lack of the will needed to convince an enemy that all is lost and surrender is their only remaining option.

It is time for another generation to move America forward. Those who have bled for this country and the principles it stands for are unlikely to have the world view of those who hold power now and hold such men and women in contempt.

We will have to see what the next generation will offer come November.

 

[piasabird]

When was the last time the USA Declared War?

 

[TheBDB]

I think military service could certainly help someone gain the skills necessary to be a good public servant in government. It isn't necessary or likely to influence if I would vote for them though.

Of note people I know in the military seem to have a wide variety of political views. Lots of conservatives and liberals.

 

[nick1985]

when was the last time the usa declared war?

wwii iirc

 

[ch33zw1z]

When was the last time the USA Declared War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

 

[MacPasty]

PJABBER, you done delivered a GOP wet dream scenario that is an epic fail simply because many of those US military officers forgot to deliver an iota of progress in Afghanistan, and Iraqi democracy may be two miles wide and not more than an inch deep.

The one somewhat shining post Vietnam military doctrine was the Powell doctrine, and that was killed dead dead dead by the GOP in early 2003. If anything, the US military is now less honest than it was during the Vietnamese war and three times as demoralized by the antics of Rumsfeld. Vietnam progress was denominated in terms of filled body bags. Now we are happier to alienate entire regions, nations, and religions while PJABBER's citizen soldiers utter not one questioning peep on the wisdom of such policies.

Is that the leadership our nation needs now?

Im not paid to be a politician, im paid to fight, but even if did question our policies its not my place to say. If the military operated under anything other than the assumption that the government knows best, how could our military properly function? I'll say this, i dont like being shot at or blown up, but i signed up to put myself in harms way for our country, which i presume elected this government. As for progress? Ive never feared more for my life then when i was in Now Zad, an abandoned city filled with insurgents. Now nine months latter families are moving back and and an the fighting is all but over with. Sweeping political changes will take time in a region that has been ruled by the gun for hundreds of years.

 

[PeshakJang]

Im not paid to be a politician, im paid to fight, but even if did question our policies its not my place to say. If the military operated under anything other than the assumption that the government knows best, how could our military properly function? I'll say this, i dont like being shot at or blown up, but i signed up to put myself in harms way for our country, which i presume elected this government. As for progress? Ive never feared more for my life then when i was in Now Zad, an abandoned city filled with insurgents. Now nine months latter families are moving back and and an the fighting is all but over with. Sweeping political changes will take time in a region that has been ruled by the gun for hundreds of years.

I wouldn't listen to much of anything Lemon Law has to say in this thread... he is the same person who said that members of the military have less worth than other people. He truly believes things that he says, which is pretty sad. Being fed fantasy viewpoints for such a long time has turned them into reality in his mind, and reading a thread like this must absolutely drive him crazy knowing that he'll never be part of the extreme minority of Americans that actually served their society instead of simply leeching off of it.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to really question the PJABBER contention of, "Gentle transitions? The Iraq transition is an example of a gentle transition that could have been entirely more effective with a more aggressive and dominant allied military presence to maintain the security of the country."

It was Rummy who fired Shinsike when he pointed out the Rummy was going in far too light to run a military occupation. A country the size of Iraq , by military doctrines the same all over the world was going to require 500,000 troops. Afghanistan was gong to take 620,000.

We never had a tiny fraction of that and as a predictable result, we got anarchism and insurgencies as a result.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Rumsfield ws not planning on a military occupation.

It was expected (based on lies) that the Iraqi people would be so happy to throw off the Saddam yoke that they would welcome the US with open arms and quickly moe to a Western Democratic government.

Thinking like what happened in Europe.

Get in, kick out the opposing military, replace the problem government and sit back until everything looks good; then exit stage right (as needed)

While some intelligence analysts felt that that was a rosy scenario and not applicable to that part of the world; the admin charged ahead with the rose tinted glasses.

 

[StageLeft]

Do war vets demonstrably make better leaders? is it possible to quantify? They know how to lead, sure, but for example the guy who has served four tours in Iraq, what is he actually learning about America (particularly its economy, typically the #1 issue on people's agendas) while hunkered down behind a pile of dirt for several years of his life? Certainly not how to balance a budget.

They have skills but I don't see a pancea.

 

[PeshakJang]

Do war vets demonstrably make better leaders? is it possible to quantify? They know how to lead, sure, but for example the guy who has served four tours in Iraq, what is he actually learning about America (particularly its economy, typically the #1 issue on people's agendas) while hunkered down behind a pile of dirt for several years of his life? Certainly not how to balance a budget.

They have skills but I don't see a pancea.

Presidents lead, that's why they should be a leader. Obama didn't get elected because he was portrayed as somebody who had the expertise to balance a budget, he got elected because he presented himself as a leader that many people could follow. Unfortunately, the best armchair generals make the worst leaders when thrown on the field, as he has made pretty clear in the last year.

That being said, field grade officers spend most of their time being politicians, not sitting behind piles of dirt. Serving your country is probably the best way to learn about your country. Those who do, know.

 

[piasabird]

I think the GOP is full of War-Mongers. We dont need to rush to war just because we dont agree with the politcs of other countries. I dont think we have changed much in Afghanistan. It is a giant Poppie Farm. The people have no self respect. Killing more people will not help much.

 

[Thump553]

John Kerry was a decorated Vietnam vet. GWB hid out the war. How did 2004 work out again?

FDR-no military experience, he presided over the Depression and WWII, our second greatest military crisis. In fact, none of the Presidents between Teddie Roosevelt and Harry Truman were in the military. But why let real facts interfer with your conclusions?