In an election year, even the most trivial of incidents can become the subject of intense scrutiny. Take, for example, the story about a handful of Marines whose lunch was interrupted by John Kerry. On its own merits, the story is nothing more than a photo-op that backfired. Slightly amusing, perhaps, but the event is certainly not portentous of the military’s reaction to Kerry’s candidacy. Being a non-issue, I would have ignored the story completely had it not led to a rift between two influential bloggers, Hugh Hewitt and Sgt. Stryker, whose opinions I both respect and admire.
The dispute erupted after Hugh made the following comment about the incident:
Bottom line: This is how the overwhelming number active duty military in this country feel about the Democratic Party and its Michael Moore-loving elites. Clip and save and reread when you hear Kerry-Edwards talking about how they will strengthen the military. The would-be commander-in-chief doesn't have the respect of the men and women he seeks to command. George W. Bush does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead the military and guide the war? The active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or John Kerry's band of brothers?
This elicited the following response from Stryker:
I’m going to say this as nicely as possible: Go to hell. It pisses me off when f***ing moonbats portray us as Pathetic Victims of the Man or Dumb Brutes Who Kill People for Fun. It pisses me off even more when people presume to speak on my behalf, and on my comrades’ behalf, as if we were some data point on a score sheet.
Let me clue you in on something, Hugh: We’re not f****ing idiots. You will find as many opinions on Bush, Kerry and all the rest of it as you’ll find in the rest of the country. There’s about as many Democrats as Republicans in the military, especially among enlisted folk. There’s an even greater percentage of people who don’t care at all because they know that it doesn’t matter who’s President or who’s in control of Congress. Our lives don’t change.
Hugh responded to the criticism by quoting a poll that showed voters among active military, reserve personnel, and veterans favored Bush over Kerry, 52% to 44%. Personally, I’m not sure I’d consider this an “overwhelming number.” I also think that the inclusion of veterans who are no longer in the service could potentially skew the numbers, undermining their usefulness.
Still, I think Hugh has a valid point. I believe that if the election were decided solely on the basis of the military vote then Bush would undoubtedly serve another four years. This is the general consensus of most military members that I’ve talked to about the election, though I respect Stryker’s right to disagree on this point.
On another matter, though, I have to vehemently disagree. Stryker’s claim that a majority of the military doesn’t care who gets elected President is, quite honestly, rather disturbing. Fortunately, I don’t believe it’s true. But it would be quite lamentable if it were. After all, the American military is comprised of “citizen soldiers” and we should never forget that we have obligations under both roles. Any citizen who believes that it doesn’t matter who controls Congress or who is elected President is dangerously and willfully ignorant.
What if a Presidential candidate wants to force the military to accept openly homosexual conduct? Or what if the Congress decides that woman should be allowed to serve in combat roles, including the infantry? Does Stryker really believe that “our lives wouldn’t change?” The election of our leaders has a profound impact on our military and our country. We should take the responsibility for choosing these leaders seriously.
Stryker also takes issue with the claim made by one of the Marine’s who claimed that he was “100 percent against” and that “We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent.”
So, if Kerry were to become the next Commander-in-Chief, would you still be against him 100%? Or would it come down to 60 or 75%? I’m trying to figure this out, because support for the current CINC is one thing, but when you openly express that you’re 100% against the guy who could be your next CINC, then you’re setting yourself up for a situation you don’t want to be in. We serve the Position, not the Man. The military has no business forming personality cults around politicians.
In the fall of 1991, when Bill Clinton was challenging George Bush for the Presidency, I found myself in a similar situation. My first four years of service was ending during the heat of the election season and I was faced with a choice. If I reenlisted and Clinton was elected then I would have to serve under a Commander-in-Chief for whom I had little respect. In fact, I was “100% against the guy”, believing him to be a man of low character and demonstrably bad judgment.
My desire to continue my career in the Marines was bumping up against my political idealism and I was unsure of what to do. I brought my concerns to a salty old Gunnery Sergeant whose opinion I had always respected. “Marines follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief,” he told me, “but our service is to our country.”
Stryker is right. We serve the “Position, not the Man.” Until Election Day I will continue to exercise my right as a citizen to oppose John Kerry. If he is elected, though, I will do my duty as a Marine and obey any and all lawful orders that he hands down. I’ll set aside my personal opinions of the man in order to do my duty. After all, I may have to follow his orders, but it’s my country that I’m serving.
Both bloggers are right.
Obviously, if the military weren't strongly biased against liberal Democrats, then Al Gore wouldn't have dispatched his attorneys by the planeload to Homestead, to Pensacola, to Jacksonville, and to Tampa to ensure that the greatest possible number of overseas absentee ballots got thrown out.
On the other hand, Stryker is correct in saying that the armed forces, WHEN IN UNIFORM, should be able to take no public stand whatsoever on matters of political opinion. For this reason, active duty military personnel are disallowed from participating in political rallies and other demonstrations while in military uniform. When I was stationed in Europe, then in California, we had protests outside of our garrisons regarding nuclear weapons, regarding the Gulf War, regarding base closures, whatever the hell the Left was peeved about that day--and our instructions and orders were explicit: do not say anything to anyone that will get into the papers or on television; do not respond to anything any demonstrator says or does; if asked any question, only one reply--No Comment-- is acceptable; and under no circumstances can a soldier do or say anything which can be construed as a command sponsorship of a political or religious position.
In this country, our military answers to and is subordinate to a civilian authority. Those that don't like it can try Cuba or other military dictatorships, such as the former Iraq.
I would like to point out that even the President has a pretty limited authority when it comes to the Armed Services. At least, when the Congress is doing it job instead of being a rubber stamp.
He can order what he wants, but he can't pay for it. And he can't order the Army into conflict without assent of Congress in some fashion. The Marines are different of course.
But for example, you can look at one of the stupid bogeymen that the military is so terrified of, permitting gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly.
Clinton wanted to do this, but was prevented from doing so by Congress.
So what's left in place is a mish-mash that consists of a law passed by Congress (no homosexuals in the military), and an administrative policy signed by Clinton and kept in place by Bush, that of not asking recruits what their sexual orientation is.
So a President's power, regardless of who wins the next election is still quite limited.
Even if your current anti-Christ Kerry, is elected, I'm sure you can count on an un-cooperative Congress at the very least.
Kerry said when he was a young man he was defending our country. I assume this is a reference to his time in "Nam". Well The dem's have accused Bush's Iraq is the new "Nam" so does that mean, by implication, that Kerry agrees that this is defending our country?
When listening to the dem convention, it was really hard to hear any reason to vote for Kerry on the military that was different than Bush. Did they hide the anti-war element, or did I miss it?
It is my belief that the Marine in question was not using "we" in the sense of being all active duty military, but maybe just himself and the others at lunch with him. On the other hand, it does not seem inappropriate for Sen. Kerry to go say hello to them; although it would be inappropriate for him to attempt to publicly enlist them as supporters of his.