Why Do Conservatives Love the Military?
My good friend, ConcreteBob, asks a great question in his recent blog.
If a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in Iraq were to receive an anonymous care package or letter of support, who likely would have been its sender: a liberal or a conservative?
Please keep in mind we’re not talking about Republicans and Democrats. I don’t want to go there here and I’m sure VAMC doesn’t want me to either. While I was stationed in the DC area recently I noticed this very same thing. The anti-war crowd was setting up at the base of the Capitol in preparation for an upcoming rally. I noticed a bunch of banners that said “Support the Troops - Bring Them Home Now” and “Peace is Patriotic” (coincidentally, I created a counter to that latter one in the form of a bumper sticker that reads “Peace Is Patriotic…That’s Why We Went To War“).
I decided to speak to a few of them about what it means to “support the troops”. I walked their displays trying to find some booth collecting donations, cards, care packages, anything that would be going to troops in combat. Nothing. I found a guy named Evan who would speak to me. Evan was in his mid-twenties perhaps. I wanted to impart a piece of wisdom to this young man who was supporting this misguided effort. I motioned towards his encampment and asked him which of the tents before us were collecting letters, cards or care packages for troops. I asked which tent was asking for donations of shoes, clothing, toys, school supplies or other goods that Soldiers can hand out to the Iraqi people to make their lives better. I told him I don’t have a problem with the peace movement and anti-war movement. But, I DO have a problem with a peace movement and anti-war movement that purports to do it in the name of supporting the troops and yet nothing there makes me feel supported. I told him the reason why his cause will never gain acceptance from Soldiers is because they go about it all wrong. I may feel more inclined to listen to their speeches and read their literature if I actually saw something there that REALLY supported the troops. I asked him when was the last time they went to Walter Reed and brought cookies, movies, music, flowers, letter, cards, drawings, anything to make those Soldiers they supposedly support feel better. NEVER.
And that, my tin foil hat wearing friend, is why I don’t support you and made an effort to thank that ONE lady standing alone on the side of the road with her “I Support Our Troops” sign instead of any of the many people mulling about without deodorant and badly in need of a shower. I also thanked him for the civil conversation and that it’s a rare day that I have a conversation with people like him and don’t get called names or have to deal with screaming and yelling. We shook hands and departed.
There are liberals in the military, but they are few and far between. When was the last time you heard a conservative candidate complain about military absentee ballots. It’s never an issue for them, so they don’t. However, in almost every election you’ll hear about a liberal candidate slamming the military absentee balloting system because it hurts them. The military is more conservative and it’s just a plain fact. I hesitate to say we’re more patriotic. The better way to put it is that we show our patriotism differently - through service to our country instead of constantly complaining about everything.
When you get a chance, check out ConcreteBob’s post and let me know what you think. I’ll wait…
Aaron
October 12th, 2007 at 10:54 amWow. I am stunned. Are you seriously saying that sending cookies to a vet who had his legs blown off by an IED outside Baghdad is better than trying to convince our leaders to remove 100,000+ soldiers from the possibility of encountering the same fate? In my city (Tampa, FL, home of the James Haley VA hospital) we have a group of people who call themselves “patriots” who stand on the corner of a major intersection every Friday during rush hour and wave flags and signs saying “We support the troops” and I’m sure they feel really good about themselves, but at the end of the day, that’s all it accomplishes. It most certainly does nothing for the young men and women who are so cavalierly put into harm’s way. And to counter your accusation, a few years ago I stopped and asked how I could donate some old books, magazines and DVD’s to a soldier who would appreciate them in Iraq or Afghanistan. Shockingly, none of the 25 or so “patriots” had any idea about how to accomplish this. Oops, I guess your near-sighted generalization of liberals as useless, unwashed hippies and conservatives as altruistic, freedom fighters falls a bit short of reality, at least in this community of over a million people, your mileage may vary. I do support the troops; their right to live out their days with life and limb intact. Their right to never have to set foot in such a disgraceful excuse for a healthcare facility as Walter Reed. Their right to not have to engage in illegal and unprovoked wars designed and executed by those who dodged their own service. Sorry, but cookies don’t really do much to support these rights. If only it were that easy…
11thACR
October 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pmI think that sometimes Blogs are taken out of Context. I agree with CJ because he is saying (In my opinion) that just Protesting is not supporting our troops but a way to get attention of which never works. I’m a Vietnam Vet and there were protesters in the streets with a sign in one hand that said stop the War and in the other hand a sign that said Baby Killers. So are they supporting the Troops to Stop the War but then the Troops are psychopaths? I would have liked a Cookie in Nam instead of Hearing about the protesting that did more harm than Good.
CJ
October 13th, 2007 at 12:11 amAaron, naturally not ALL liberals are “useless, unwashed hippies” and not ALL conservative are “altruistic, freedom fighters”. Like any generalization, there are exceptions. I think I even met a liberal who DID shower once (that was a joke - I even met a liberal once with a sense of humor….really!). But, let me piggy back off of my Blackhorse brother, 11th ACR (allons!!). As a Soldier, and I am one, MY experience has been exactly as I described it. Of course, I haven’t been down to Tampa City in the past four years. I do have family down near there, but I haven’t been to Tampa City. When I first got to the DC area, I visited Walter Reed on a Friday night. Outside the gate there were a bunch of liberals with their signs similar to what the previous comment says. “Bush Lied Soldiers Died” and even the ever popular “Bush killed innocent Iraqis”. Now, obviously, BUSH never killed anyone. The Soldiers are over there. So the implication might as well have been “US Soldiers killed innocent Iraqis”. I’ve been to many liberal protests where signs that DO say “Baby Killer” and other vulgar phrases were prominent. I was personally shouted down and called a liar and baby killer during a Code Pink gathering just for telling them MY story while in Iraq.
Supporting the troops does not always involve sending “some old books, magazines and DVD’s to a soldier”. We prefer brand new books, magazines and DVDs….and iPods!! (another joke) It involves donating money to military support charities like Wounded Warrior, Adopt A Platoon, Fisher House and Soldiers Angels among others. It involves taking the time to shake a Soldier’s hand and saying thank you. It involves escorting the casket of a fallen comrade to his/her final resting place. Some patriots only know to do one of those. Some can do them all. I’ll tell you what though. I’d rather drive by and see a bunch of people waving flags and being proud to be an American with signs that say “We support our troops” than seeing driving by and seeing the streets lined with caskets with phony crosses as if they care. If you really cared, you’d sign yourself up and help us end this fight sooner.
Supporting the troops does not mean “bring them home now” before the mission is complete. Supporting the troops means bringing us home as soon as our job is finished so that more people don’t die. War requires sacrifice and I think the SOLDIER is more qualified to answer the question of whether or not our mission is worthy of us losing our lives or limbs. And just so you know, I was injured in Iraq in an artillery attack. I’ve made that sacrifice and I have many friends who have given just as much and more. And each of us have gone out of way to volunteer to go back and help finish the mission. Then, when it’s done, we will HAPPILY return with honor knowing that we didn’t leave countless Iraqis defenseless for the slaughter.
And yes, the cookies DO help. Especially the Thin Mints from the Girl Scouts. So please send as many as you can afford.
11thACR
October 15th, 2007 at 9:04 amThe second to the last line in her response explains everything…
“Ex American”
Aaron
October 15th, 2007 at 9:05 amCJ,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with you about it being crucial to not leave the battle zone before the mission is complete. Unfortunately, that battle zone is actually Afghanistan, the real front in “The War Against Terror”, referred to from here on out as TWAT. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan actually harbored terrorists, not a former US ally dictator who was a big fan of Stalin and did some not-so-nice things to his people. Now, because of our massive rush to get into Iraq, the resurgence of narcotic trade, religious fundamentalism and terrorism in Afghanistan has turned it into a “failed state”. TWAT, like its misguided predecessor “The War on Drugs” is destined to be spectacular failure in its stated goals. Their unstated goals, i.e. undermining the constitutional rights of all Americans and subverting international law, are a huge success and therefore they continue in the face of popular disapproval by the majority of US and world citizens. Don’t get me wrong, I support the military. I see the need for a large standing army. That need is defense. Pre-emptive war is never defense. War does not make peace. If the Iraqi army set foot on American soil with bad intentions you better believe I’d be first in line to see the nearest recruiter. Saudi Arabian nationals crashed planes into the pentagon and world trade center, not Iraqis. How come we’re not at war with the Saudis? Even the tinfoil hat crowd, who think the war is all about oil know the Saudis have more oil than the Iraqis. I do support the military, I just feel that nationalism, especially the fervent, blinded type that follows a spectacular terrorist attack is dangerous. We’ve given up so much and gained so little. The US used to be the envy of the entire world. They looked up to us and wanted to emulate our every action. Now all they care about are our movies, music and McDonald’s. We need to get back to leading by example rather than the double-standard we operate under now. You know, like how torture is bad when they do it, but our coercive techniques are just fine. I love this country; there are not many places in the world where I could even express my opinion like I’m doing right now. But loving America does not mean that I turn a blind eye to the treatment our soldiers, the poor, working class and middle class receive. By the way, I’m dying to know what you or any other vets here think of the use of mercenary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you feel knowing they get paid 10x your salary to do the same job?
Aaron
CJ
October 15th, 2007 at 3:26 pmAaron, instead of presenting arguments proving the exact opposite you espouse here, I’ll point you to my military blog, A Soldier’s Perspective. I’ve addressed all these points about your remarks of Afghanistan being a “failed state” and Iraq not harboring terrorists (Zarqawi easily comes to mind as well as Ansar al-Islam). I will answer your last question, though. I could care less how much anyone else gets paid to be a mercenary. I’m not one and I didn’t join the military to make “10x [my] salary”. I joined the military to serve my country and protect freedom. They aren’t doing the same job, by the way. Do some research. They are overglorified PSD and nothing more. They are not military units sanctioned by the government to bring peace to a lawless fledgling democracy.
CJ
October 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pmTinFoil Hat Lady, I’ve read your website and seen you in action. I won’t even qualify your remarks with an answer. 11th ACR pretty much summed it up. If you want to be an “ex-American” then I really don’t care what you think. You’re no longer “one of us”.
Miriam
October 15th, 2007 at 10:26 pmHaving been there and done that, Aaron, I’d say your front line in the battle against Islamic terrorists is rather narrow. If you aren’t careful, the enemy will surprise you from behind. Or if they don’t, it will be thanks to many more alert Americans like our military.
So where is the front line? Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria immediately come to mind. That’s not to say we have or will have troops in all of those places, but they (among others) are the key players. There are also serious struggles going on in other less noticeable places such as most of northern Africa and, would you know it, Indonesia. I haven’t checked on how hot the Philippians are these days, but I’m keeping an eye on Michigan…yes, right here in the US.
So you can keep your blinders on, if you like. You can even call me paranoid. I know that I know what I’m talking about. And maybe some day, you will get to see the whole picture, at which time you’ll be thanking the US military for saving your warm armchair for you!
Aaron
October 16th, 2007 at 7:52 amMiriam,
I wouldn’t call disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home while failing to secure their extensive cache of weapons an alert move by our military, would you? So you’ve got a bunch of young, unemployed men with lots of guns, mortars, etc, no electricity, no way to feed their families, a grudge, and a whole lot of time on their hands. If that isn’t a recipe for terrorism, I don’t know what is. Again though I think you have me wrong. I support the military… for defense. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. Hence why we are not actually at war right now. This is a job for police, not soldiers or mercenaries. When the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was obliterated by a terrorist attack did the president declare war on Michigan since that’s where McVeigh received his training and support? Um, no. We let the experts handle it. The FBI, Interpol, etc are very good at what they do and soldiers are good at what they do. But there isn’t a lot of overlap between the two. One could also make the argument that America sponsors terrorism, what with the School of the Americas where we trained the Nicaraguan death squads. Imagine for a second that another country decided to forgo international law and the consensus of the rest of the world and attempt to invade American soil to right those wrongs. Let’s say somebody like China, whose standing army is close to our entire population, so that our combined military forces would be overwhelmed. What do you think Americans all over the country would do? I’m pretty sure they’d take up arms to repel the invaders. So why is it so surprising that Iraqi’s would do the same thing? Sure, compared to our bloated American standard, their lives under Saddam were probably rather unenjoyable. But how are they doing now? Several hundred thousand dead, 2 million refugees, no promised oil revenues, no electricity, civil war, and so on. I just fail to see how this is protecting America. Help me understand how you see it differently, because all I see is a generation of Iraqi children growing up hating America and moving one step closer to strapping on a dynamite vest. I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I really just don’t see how protecting America is related to killing innocent people, defying international treaty and running up crippling debt to pay for it all.
Aaron
DougS
October 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pmThank you, Aaron, for your calm, reasoned posts. I’ve felt compelled to step up here at times when it all the comments were on one side (scroll down and check out the dialog at CJ’s”White House AAR” post). Seems like a lot of people see enemies everywhere and advocate actions that will guarantee these enemies arise where they weren’t before. Perhaps it’s a desire to live in important times requiring a civilization-threatening ideological struggle, instead of a lucky fluke by an organization of several hundred.
Miriam
October 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pmAaron, one of the things you fail to understand is Islam. You reason as if the Iraqi’s beliefs are the same as ours. That doesn’t mean that every Iraqi is fond of the effects Islamic teachings, but in many ways diametrically opposed to ours. You also seem to think that envy will make people loving towards us. But that sort of reasoning isn’t realistic.
I, for one, care much more about doing what’s right than I care what anyone thinks of me. And would you say it is right to allow people to declare war on us for years, to bomb our embassies, to kill “peace keepers”, threaten us with dirty bombs that would kill many more people than the planes did…the list goes on. So when does it stop? When do you say enough, and go on the offensive?
Pres Clinton didn’t act appropriately after the Oklahoma City bombing because he didn’t care about American lives or sovereignty. He only cared about the opinion of his European pals. So in response, we got one attempted bombing of the World Trade Center and one successful one. Now that Saddam is dead for only some of the many crimes he committed, we have perhaps finally received justice for the Oklahoma City bombing which there was evidence he was either directly or indirectly involved with. One thing, I guarantee you, the FBI did not solve that case.
DougS
October 18th, 2007 at 11:12 amRight. No American could have committed that Oklahoma City bombing. Especially not a Christian. Just because Timothy McVeigh and Nichols confessed and were convicted of the crime and all the evidence pointed to them, there’s no way they were behind it.
Miriam
October 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pmWho said there weren’t American’s involved? I seem to recall some white kid from California being found among the Talaban. That doesn’t mean Saddam didn’t provide the resources.
DougS
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 amI must’ve missed the part in the trial where Saddam’s name came up.
Miriam
October 27th, 2007 at 10:44 amIt’s a little hard to investigate a connection when evidence is suppressed or eliminated.
Matthew
November 8th, 2007 at 12:03 amI am coming on to this conversation a little late, maybe too late. I am an Airman, reading through this made me pissed off; I’m going to have to agree with CJ. Starting from the beginning, a box of cookies or just a letter that says “thank you for fighting for me” makes all the difference. Another thing, it is very hard to base your facts off of what you get on CNN or FOX, please do not think you know what really goes on unless you have been there. Who said we are not in Afghanistan? We are not fighting the Iraq army or their citizens, but the terrorist inside Iraq. If anything the citizens have helped more than anything else. As far as why we didn’t declare war on Michigan is because you legally cannot declare war on us citizens. At best you can declare martial law, the KKK is declared as a terrorist organization but we can’t declare war on them because they are protected under the US constitution.
Robert
January 20th, 2008 at 10:46 pmI’m late to this conversation. I think it important that a distinction be made between a neo-conservative and a conservative. The primary differences being a neo-conservative supports an expansionist foreign policy and has little problem with a large, central government. The neo-cons love the military as it is a means to expand power. Conservatives see the military as a means of defense.
Liberals dislike the military because they are rightly seen as an extension of government power. Now liberals are not too opposed to government power, just they prefer their kind of government power. Most liberals recognize that their beef is not with the military, but with the current federal government.
Liberals and neo-cons are practically the same. They both wish to use power to further their agenda. They just have a disagreement over the agenda.
The only rational voices are the conservatives, constitutionalist, and libertarians (well, some of them). They generally support a military based on defense rather than projection of power and some nebulous idea about “national interest” (which normally means selfish interest) and small government.
Many folks are willing to trade liberty for safety (meaning they are willing to “give-up” some of their civil liberties for safety). I do not fall into this category. I would rather face the prospect of dying at the hands of a terrorist and live in the liberty intended by the founders than to sink into some type of peaceful serfdom.
So I guess this is a rambling way of saying that neo-cons support the military because it furthers their agenda and those that oppose the war do so for a number of reasons. Mine is I value individual liberty and constitutional government over safety (since I am told by my government I can’t have both).