Is it impossible to be a Democratic officer anymore?

[Dapper Dan Man]

Well, inspired by certain...heady...debates on here, I thought the question was pertinent. Has the military become too politicized?

Now, as a ROTC cadet I dont presume to understand the nuances of military culture, nor to offer "expert" debate on the subject. However, I do know from certain regulations that a person should not offer an opinion on anything as regards military service while wearing the uniform or representing the military. This ostensibly is to protect the reputation of the military from uninformed opinions floating about that this is the (insert service here)'s stance on so and so. I am uncertain if this only applies to officers and cadets or to the enlisted as well.

Contrary to what many people may think, not all "butter bars" "greenhorns" and the like are uninformed and dont care about soldiers in general. However, is the political atmosphere currently pervading the US acting as a detriment to the efficiency of the military? Some of the political stances of my fellow cadets are appaling to me (and would be to most people), and some of my superiors have offered invaulable advice. But the question remains (for everyone, not just military wonks), can a Democrat serve in the military without being drowned out?

 

[Roshambo]

Politics are becoming more prevasive into the military, even to the point of breaking common comraderie between troops. Even a few years back, in the 90's, an E-2 had a problem with a chief going into political dogma in the office, and they came to me for advice.

Typically, while in uniform, politics should not be entertained. They are supposed to be one, united body of soldiers. Each may have different religious beliefs, personal political beliefs, and personal hobbies. None of that should overlap and cause problems on duty.

So, I really had no choice but to tell said E-2 that they should just nod and not really say anything to said NCO, because complaining about that at most major commands is about as good as reporting racism at NTC Keesler a few years back. That is the honest, sad reality of it, because despite the lofty regulations and such, it doesn't always work along the letter. It would be nice if it did work ideally, but unfortunately not. Reporting it doesn't always help, and can bring unwanted attention to yourself as a result.

And, to be honest, many soldiers are in denial about this conflict. Many are also confused, because of the original lie about why they were going over there, and then why they are doing what they are doing currently aside from quelling uprisings. The same thing that happened with Nam, coincidentally enough, trying to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing by "securing areas" or bombing entire miles of Cambodia's jungle through Nixon's designs, where everything in that range is dead and ready for paving, while dealing with the Viet Cong.

They need to keep marching the chain of command's line, but hardly everyone had faith in those orders, especially if they are there for escorting civvy personnel for Vice President War Profiteer.

Yeah, I know I'm fond of saying that the Vice President is a war profiteer, mainly because most soldiers would face court martial and a Big Chicken Dinner for being war profiteers (mainly because, you know, it's clearly treasonous especially when they are an active war profiteer), yet this appears how Cheney wants to do business.

The task of this falls to the soldiers, and who really wants to admit that they're working on the whim of some millionaire who thinks it's cool to use their position to make money off of the suffering and deaths of US troops, for military pay?

Would anyone want to admit to working for a McDonald's that is shot at daily, either?

 

[welsh]

It's a good question fireblade. As a teacher at a university that has ROTC courses for all services, I have students who represent different political orientations.

The military has gone conservative, and perhaps it always has been a conservative bastion. Perhaps that's even part of the job- to protect the US from enemies foreign and domestic implies the defense of the status quo = conservativism.

But that's different from wearing your politics on your sleeves. Defending the status quo can also cause you trouble if you are not a progressive thinker. Before Germany invaded France during World War 2, De Gaulle challenged the conservative leadership to develop mobile armored warfare around tanks. The general staff refused, with terrible results. De Gaulle was something of a maverick and a radical. Look at the US military- for years african-americans could socially climb through military ranks, something that was not possible in civilian society.

But I think in a democratic state, your political leanings are important and it's good to have your own opinions. It's necessary sometimes for officers to differ in their opinions. It's also important for a country to not have a military captured by one political party.

As Rosh states above, your duty to country should stand above duty to party or political leanings.