John Edwards: Busting Conservative Myths about the Military

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards: Busting Conservative Myths about the Military
Lorelei Kelly--Huffington Post
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
----
The Edwards campaign recently took an important step forward in citizen engagement. This website asks Americans to celebrate Memorial Day by showing support for the troops while opposing the war in Iraq. This is a smart move for many reasons. Despite the efforts of Rove and his PR minions, Americans have not fallen for the repeated attempts to make supporting the troops indivisible from supporting the President's war policy.
(...)
Edwards is on the leading edge of an imminent and vitally important national conversation. How American citizens relate to and communicate with their military is known by the egghead-ish term "civil-military relations." In all my work with the military over the past decade, one lesson has been imparted to me time and again: that U.S. civil military relations are at a low point. This was true before the Iraq war, but is much worse today because of it. Citizens in continual communication with their military is a cornerstone of healthy democracy. Ideally, this relationship provides a sort of civilian-military safety net that not only gives citizens a healthy respect for public service, but makes them highly sensitive to the use of force. Such knowledge can also provide leverage against a runaway Executive Branch--something notably lacking in 2003 as the President declared war and rolled through Congress. The U.S. Congress has been woefully unprepared to fight the current administration, but it is dramatically improving. The House Armed Services Committee brought back the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations this year. Maybe they will one day take up the issue of the lamentable politicization of the armed services. And check out this oversight plan. This is fantastic compared to the one that expired last January.

John Edwards is getting a track record for blazing the trail on national security. He was the only Democratic contender at the first debate to openly criticize the label "war on terror." His lonely stance was unusual and illustrates how fearful we've become as a nation as well as alienated from the fundamental principles of our own democracy. Military experts --many veterans among them-- have been broadcasting their dissatisfaction about this label since the war began. Terrorism is a tactic, not a long term strategy. And the Bush Administration has been getting a free ride on this moniker since the post 9/11 world began. But then, understanding the integrity and the substance of the military would explode the neo-conservative election strategy that revolves around distorted labels of strength and weakness, patriotism and "America hating." We will endure these talking points until a group of wise Republicans decide to take their party back. In the meantime, we on the left can obstruct this BS by retiring old, tired rhetoric like "Hawks vs. Doves", "guns vs. butter" or "military industrial complex." We've got most of the liberal arts grads. Let's make up some new language. We need to act fast. The military now sucks up over half of the money available in the budget every year (not counting the wars). Our service members are accumulating more and more responsibilities, from door kicking to election monitoring. We've laid far too many tasks at their feet, all without a thorough deliberation in Congress or elsewhere. Our elected leaders need to draw some clear boundaries before we all get used to the status quo. I'm a traditionalist on this score: I'd like to see the military circumscribed to very specific roles--only where the presence of credible coercion is vital. The division of labor for U.S. national security is a long awaited debate that is the centerpiece of civil-military relations today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorelei-kelly/john-edwards-busting-con_b_48487.html

[dave_p]

1. Will Edwards repudiate aggression?

Simple question. If he's departing from past US official readiness to initiate violence, then he offers improvement. But America need a policy framework for practical issues. Enough of the Edwards campaign's silence on inter-country relations beyond curtrent areas of US military action. It's time for him to bust myths about America's wider role in securing peace, coexistence and security for all.

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick (nt).

[paparush]

3. Note to the Edwards Campaign Staff - Please keep the man away from small planes,

hotel balconies, and um, convertibles in Dallas.

Ok.

Thanks!

[ultraist]

4. K&R for real change in America!

:kick:

[waiting for hope]

5. K&R!!

Where's Manny when you need another kick?

:kick: and a :thumbsup: and a SUPER BIG :bounce:

[GreenArrow]

6. only Democratic contender first debate to openly criticize "war on terror."

He was?

>>MODERATOR: Senator, thank you.

Second "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?

Let's try Congressman Kucinich.

Why is your hand not up?

KUCINICH: Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war...

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html

Edwards goes nowhere near as far in his comments.