The Crossed Pond

I am quite comfortable in saying that over two decades ago, when I first entered the service, the military, and the officer corps in particular, overwhelmingly self identified as Republican, and venerated Reagan more than you can imagine. I’m breaking no new ground here; his popularity with military personnel was a magnification of his popularity with mainstream Americans, although with a few added factors. In addition to the renewed national pride and willingness to confront communism more aggressively, those in the armed forces keyed in heavily on military reductions and perceived foreign policy failures under Carter, versus Reagan’s massive expansion of military spending. Appreciation of this expansion is partially attributable to the near universal human belief that one’s chosen profession deserves additional focus and resources. Within the military we believed in the massive and growing threat from Soviet-style communism, and Reagan took it seriously. It didn’t hurt that military expansion also meant a significant improvement in promotability: More battalions and ships required more commanders to lead them. I don’t want to oversell that; most officers supported Reagan without reservation, the promotion aspects were a bit of icing on an already delicious cake. Naval officers still look back to the “600-ship Navy” (279 now) with nostalgia and wry regret, while the Army certainly misses the days of 18 active duty divisions (10 now).

Additionally, we got to use our weapons. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the military trains continually, indoctrinates thoroughly, and longs for the right opportunity to put warheads on foreheads. The excitement and buzz surrounding the lead up to any actual shooting event is extraordinary and exhilarating. Conversely, when that operation is resolved without weapons release, as is usual (fortunately), it is a major buzz kill. Of course, that was the 1980s. Nearly 5 years of military occupation have inoculated large swaths of the military against an overzealous attitude in this arena. Contrast the post-Vietnam lethargy under Carter and the disastrous failure of the Iranian hostage rescue operation with the Reagan renewal, military expansion, and the successful Grenada invasion. So the military cemented its love of Reagan, and extended that fondness to Bush 41. Reagan’s heir carried on the tradition: The Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait was the pinnacle of military success, the best thing we had done in three decades.

It was in this climate that Bill Clinton took office. Few presidents have faced a more hostile military. Urban legends, such as Hillary’s disdain for and refusal to talk with military personnel were common and well distributed. Although begun under Bush Sr, the reduction in military force structure, the peace dividend for winning the Cold War, accelerated under Clinton. Mandatory retirements and personnel Reduction in Force actions were common. How can any President expect to win over the military under these circumstances? And yet, he did, to some extent. Natural charisma and broad based national popularity were, of course, part of it, but Clinton was surprisingly willing to use a bit of military force when push came to shove, and the operations in the former Yugoslav republics were reasonably successful. His foreign policy initiatives, and frequent contact with the most senior General and Flag Officers began to win many over. They were, in effect, co-opted by their participation in Clintonian initiatives. By the end of his two terms he was, if not exactly loved, not hated quite so much. Faint praise perhaps, but any benefit given to Bill has an impact on Hillary. And Hillary today, though still loathed by many in uniform, is considerably more tolerable than she was in 1993.

What of today? The military has moved significantly, though not radically, left. The armed forces remain a Republican stronghold, and even with the extended occupation of Iraq, will probably remain so for several electoral cycles. But the ground has shifted, perhaps more than most realize, and Iraq is not the sole cause. Among many service members there is a general and growing unease with the Republican leadership. Again, this is a magnification of mainstream America’s concerns, with some added factors. Obviously Iraq has a certain immediacy for military people that is difficult for most civilians to fully appreciate. Many service people feel dishonored and stained by Abu Ghraib, our abandonment of Geneva Convention articles, and Guantanamo Bay. I have heard some soldiers comment along the lines: “I understand that the CIA is gonna torture sometimes, but why did they have to get us involved in that?” Again, don’t over read this: A strong contingent views the contrary voices as, well, pussies. Finally, we have the bloodletting of retired senior officers standing in line to reveal how inept and mendacious the administration has been.

Among the issues completely unrelated to Iraq, you would be shocked how many military personnel, including officers, believe the drug war, for which the military plays a very large role, has been a complete waste. Casual talk of legalization, or at least decriminalization, is not uncommon.

The relatively young average age of service members results in a surprisingly pragmatic view regarding gays: A growing contingent are just old enough to abandon teenage angst surrounding other’s perception of their sexuality, and just young enough to view opposition to gay rights as parochial, irrelevant, chronic grandpaism. Hardly universal, I admit, but toleration is higher than ever and rising. I entered service during the pre-Don’t Ask Don’t Tell days, and during my first shipboard assignment watched four sailors investigated and discharged for homosexuality. Now DADT is 14 years old, and though slightly less discriminatory than its predecessor, still exists as a condemnation of the morality and threat to good order and discipline supposedly represented by homosexuality. A Democrat in the white house next year will be the death knell for DADT. A Republican will be forced to retain this albatross as an increasingly tolerant public looks with jaundiced eye at a dieing social conservative rallying point.

The growing chickenhawk meme is far from limited to the blogosphere. Few military personnel harbor any illusions about the distressingly low number of congressman with immediate family members in uniform. Their number among the Iraq war vets is vanishing small. Consider the chickenhawk meme in light of military contributions to Presidential candidates, with Ron Paul leading.

And who are the highest profile military-to-politician transitions in the last decade? Wesley Clark and Joe Sestak. Who were the Iraq vets that ran for office House seats in 2006? 8 democrats, including high profile contenders like Tammy Duckworth, and one lonely Republican from Texas. These Iraq vets played a critical role in turning Congress over to the Democrats, and not just those who won; they all helped counter the traditional voter perspective regarding the Democratic Party’s national security credibility. They gave legitimacy to the concept of voting Democrat as a true alternative means of supporting the troops. Particularly impressive: The Pennsylvania hat trick of Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy and Chris Carney defeating three Republican incumbents. Add in the political reemergence of former Reagan Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb, and we have a Democratic veteran domination.

All this is to illustrate that the GOP nominee can expect far more military and veteran opposition than any Republican candidate for President in living memory. The Swift Boaters will look like small potatoes.