James Webb, a Vietnam veteran and the secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, wrote an op-ed for USA Today that’s getting a lot of attention. It deserves it.
The point of Webb’s essay is pondering how the “military vote,” particularly that of veterans, will go in 2004. It’s no trivial matter. Republicans have long enjoyed political support from soldiers and their families, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that service men and women are quickly becoming, as Benjamin Wallace-Wells recently described, a key “swing vote.”
Webb clearly disapproves of Kerry having returned from Vietnam — wearing three Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star, and the Navy’s Silver Star — to become a strong opponent of the war. In particular, Webb takes Kerry to task for his remarks at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, in which Webb accused Kerry of “defam[ing] a generation of honorable men.” Webb, however, wrenched Kerry’s words from context, which as Nick Confessore notes, other conservatives have done far too frequently.
The surprising part of Webb’s column, however, was his harsh criticism of Bush, who Webb takes to task for avoiding service in Vietnam and, more importantly, violating the public trust in the war in Iraq.
Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.
At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country’s great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.
Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.
That’s pretty strong criticism from Reagan’s Navy Secretary.
Of all the voting trends to watch this year, I really see the “military vote” as the most fascinating. The differences between Bush and Kerry on this issue couldn’t be greater and it will be a unique opportunity for the Dems to shake off an unwarranted image of being anti-military.
Sure, there are the personal backgrounds that are a natural point of controversy. Kerry is a war hero, having served courageously in a war he didn’t support. Bush, meanwhile, supported Vietnam but pulled family strings to avoid serving in it, not to mention the lingering questions as to whether he bothered to show up for all of his National Guard duty.
But I think the even more important point should focus on how Bush has treated the military since taking office. There’s the obvious concern that the military is overstretched and overburdened with excessive demands. As Wallace-Wells explained, soldiers and their families feel as if they’ve been neglected and mistreated.
There also the significant concerns about Bush investing in the military, but not its troops. Soldiers in Iraq have faced cuts in their imminent danger pay and family separation allowances. The Bush administration has also cut funding for military housing, the military’s construction budget, veterans’ health benefits, and funds to schools for children of soldiers.
And let’s also not forget that when the Republican White House and the Republican Congress limited the expansion of the child tax credit for low-income families, it meant almost 200,000 low-income troops got just as much as the other families in their income bracket — nothing.
It reminds me of the scathing editorial that ran in the Army Times last summer, blaming the White House for failing to follow through on benefits for the troops.
Under a headline that read, “Nothing but lip service,” the Army Times noted that Republicans in the White House and Congress “have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.