There is a fairly simple solution to re-making the Military into a non-partisan or even Democratic organization.
First, pass a bunch of pro-veteran bills.
Second, fire all the officers who promote the James Dobson crap in one fell swoop. We know who they are, they haven't been hiding it.
The first step provides cover for the second.
The second step will result in huge outrage that will subside, and then widespread and deep relief after that (the same as what happens after smokers are banned from bowling alleys).
The military is pre-disposed toward the Republican Party because they lavishly fund and support whatever they can for the military, and given the slightest chance will use it, no matter the lies or horror of innocent maiming and death.
No. The top brass is pre-disposed, or most of them are, because of that. The lower grunts generally just follow because of the macho man/religious shit they get fed from above. That can be beat. Remember, Obama is getting several times more donations this year from enlisted personnel than McCain is. The key is getting rid of the Republican wingnut cancer in the ranks above. Any officer who drops a HINT of bias in favor of a politician or a religion should be given an immeidate barely honorable discharge.
Posted by Anonny at October 21, 2008 04:23 PMi think there are a lot of military bases in red states we want to convert hence the interest in miltary votes.
anyway - wish you a smooth landing into 2009 - I hope we all toast President Obama on New years Eve.
Good luck everybody -
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at October 21, 2008 05:17 PMGood point.
Authoritarianism is an integral part of Conservatism (you wrote about this today). Authoritarianism is also an integral (and necessary) part of being in the Military.
It's no surprise then that those in the Military will always be pre-disposed to the more authoritarian and conservative party.
Posted by Voodoo Chile at October 21, 2008 06:12 PMAnd yet, Obama plans to increase the military by a million or so troops, and of course, increase the budget significantly.
What does Obama intend to use this expanded military for, I wonder.
Posted by Shirin at October 21, 2008 07:19 PMAnd yet, Obama plans to increase the military by a million or so troops, and of course, increase the budget significantly.
Source?
Sorry, simply unbelievable.
Posted by Anonny at October 21, 2008 08:01 PMOooops! Sorry! I am badly sleep deprived today for the second day in a row, and must have been typing in my sleep. I exaggerated badly - don't know what I was thinking. Make that one million into 100,000, please.
Posted by Shirin at October 21, 2008 08:34 PMMake that one million into 100,000, please.
That scope is within the realm of believability. And I suspect it refers to Afghanistan after the draw-down in Iraq.
100,000 would be easy to accomplish by reducing the foreign-based troops elsewhere by 10%, which is easy to justify, per my comment earlier.
Posted by Anonny at October 22, 2008 05:48 AMObama may turn out to disappoint a few of us, when it comes to military matters. He's said a number of times that the US "cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran", which is just the sort of remark that fosters anti-Americanism round the world. He has said he leaves all options open in the event Iran does get nuclear weapons, which presumably means he would be prepared to invade. The military needn't start worrying yet about early retirement.
And you know what? The horrible thing is, if he did invade Iran, it might win him a second term. What did Mencken say - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
Actually, the troops on the ground support Obama 6:1.
The military is no different than the rest of society. The rich and powerful support the Republicans; the regular people and the poor support the Dems.
The majority of the military is in the latter category, joining up for a way out of their conditions or to go to college or because there were no other choices...these people support the Dems.
And, I highly agree that the Dobson crap has no place in the military - especially in a war that many see as a crusade.
Posted by Anjha at October 22, 2008 07:44 AM"That scope is within the realm of believability. And I suspect it refers to Afghanistan after the draw-down in Iraq."
No, it most certainly does not. It refers to an actual increase in personnel, not a reshuffling of distribution.
"100,000 would be easy to accomplish by reducing the foreign-based troops elsewhere by 10%"
That is emphatically NOT the case. He intends to enlarge the size AND the budget of the military, not redistribute the existing personnel.
Posted by Shirin at October 22, 2008 08:34 PM