The other night at a meeting of the brand new Chilterns chapter of Democrats Abroad, someone mentioned the likelihood we'd be "tarred and feathered" were we to show our faces among the military personnel stationed here. I jumped up to disagree, but it's not the first time I've heard the assumption that the military is overwhelmingly Republican. While it's true military members often vote for Republicans, it's by no means a guaranteed voting block, and more and more military members are recognizing what many military observers have known for years. When it comes to people programs--veterans benefits, pay, housing, etc., Democrats are more likely to vote in the interest of the working grunt. (If you happen to be a weapons system however, you really should vote Republican.)
Of course, military members, just like any other American, rarely vote purely for the candidate most likely to butter their own slice of bread. Other values are reflected in one's vote, and as Thomas Frank points out, lots of poor people end up voting against their economic self-interest when they vote for Republicans because of their "Christian values". (Middle class people, too, show no more economic sense than their brethren further down the ladder when they're in the voting booth.)
How does the administration demonstrate their support for the troops whose votes they make sure get counted (even when they arrive after the deadline)? Why, you say, by increasing the military budget, now at a higher level (in constant dollars) than during the hey day of Vietnam! But there's the rub. Has spending more on defense than the next 20 nations combined (yes, that's COMBINED) actually improved the lives of military men and women?
As we note the passing of more than 1500 soldiers in Iraq, it's a good time to ask: Where is the love?
The non-partisan Defense and the National Interest observes the relationship between the administration and the soldiers:
Senior administration officials are openly complaining that costs of honoring commitments to veterans are hurting their ability to fund massive weapons programs [Wall St. J., 25 Jan 2005.] To pay for these new weapons, the Pentagon and the Office of Management and the Budget have proposed a number of cuts in other accounts, including funding for military families. Recent proposals include closing some commissaries and dependent schools and tripling the costs that retirees pay for generic medicines.
The dysfunctional "wife beating" Bush administration ("Come on, baby, forget about that black eye and come back to bed.") continues to count on military families' absentee ballots, while at the same time screwing them in the budget.
Military members and veterans are beginning to wake up. I know quite a few veterans and even active duty military members who supported Democratic candidates I worked for. There was no shortage of retired generals who publicly endorsed John Kerry for president. Enlisted men and women are getting the message, too, that the policies of George Bush have left them vulnerable in the field and their families economically vulnerable. David Hackworth, the most decorated soldier in Vietnam, puts today's military in historical perspective:
Not only is the average soldier’s salary barely life-sustaining, the combat pay of the average grunt in Afghanistan and Iraq is only $7.50 a day or a measly $225 a month. [Combat pay is in addition to a regular salary.]
America was far more generous to her soldiers during World War II, when combat pay on the battle fields of Europe and Asia was 30 cents a day or about ten bucks a month. Taking the rate of inflation into account, our draftee Army that whacked the Japanese and Germans received three times the hazardous duty pay we’re currently paying our professional Army.
Just what part of "support the troops" don't they understand?
"You go to war with the military you have, not the one you wish you had," Sec. Rumsfeld told an armor-less soldier in Kuwait, sounding like one of those guys who makes his wife drive the old beater while he tools around in a brand new Ferrari. The multi-billion dollar weapons programs devised in top secret "black" programs aren't what the troops need. They are what defense contractors need, however, and as long as programs remain black and the door between corporate America and the Bush administration remains wide open, the troops on the ground will continue to ride in Humvees that can't stand up to homemade roadside bombs. (Soviet-era missiles don't kill our troops, people do.)
Mark Shields, a Washington pundit who actually served in the military, said in December:
An America coming out of the Great Depression somehow found the leadership and the will to build and deploy around the globe 2.5 million trucks in the same period of time that the incumbent U.S. government has failed to get 30,000 fully armored vehicles to Iraq.
The Bush administration has appropriated $34.3 billion on a theoretical missile defense system -- which proved again this week to be an expensive dud in its first test in two years, when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground to intercept the target missile carrying a mock warhead -- but has been able up to now, according to congressional budget authorities, to spend just $2 billion to armor the vehicles of Americans under fire.
Red
states are full of SUVs with shiny ribbons slapped on the back, urging
us to "support the troops." Well, those stickers don't provide
protection against explosions, and neither do the slogans mouthed by
Republican congressmen who urge us to take on Iran, Syria, or whichever country du jour the pin tossed at the Mid-East map happens to nail.
While Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lied about John Kerry's honorable record and a draft-dodging president dodged questions about his own dodgy record, our troops took it on the chin. Now fifteen hundred have died, in a war we didn't need to fight, without the right equipment, while our space-aged weapons systems hurl duds into the atmosphere.
But wait...didn't President Bush invite the troops to their very own Inaugural Ball? That was a nice gesture, wasn't it? As Frank Rich says in the NY Times, Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love:.
[Fox correspondent Geraldo Rivera] joked to the crowd that his deployment as an "overpaid" reporter was tantamount to that of an "underpaid hero" in battle. The attendees from Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital, some of whose long-term care must be picked up by private foundations because of government stinginess, responded with "deafening silence," reported Roxanne Roberts of The Washington Post. Ms. Roberts understandably left the party after the night's big act: Nile Rodgers and Chic sang the lyrics "Clap your hands, hoo!" and "Dance to the beat" to "a group of soldiers missing hands and legs."
With friends like these...who needs insurgents?
The movie "Gunner Palace," a clear-eyed look at the troops in Iraq, opens this weekend. I doubt they'll screen it at the White House. After all, the election's over. And photo ops with the troops are about as cliché as flag draped coffins. (Though I hear those purple heart band-aids they wore at their convention to mock the bravery of our wounded soldiers are still in vogue.) Like Dick Cheney said when asked why he didn't fight in Vietnam, there are "other priorities"—judges to confirm, Social Security to condemn. Bankruptcies to prohibit. (Sorry, troops, no exemption for you!)
Where is the love indeed?
UPDATE: Kathy at Citizen's Rent is thinking along similar lines.
