We’ve noted several times of late that the Republican coalition, particularly in Washington, is slowly splintering over the war in Iraq. Particularly those who are concerned about their short-term futures are suddenly discovering that standing with Bush is a losing proposition. Whereas the president demanded and could depend on unflinching support for his policies from congressional Republicans, no matter how reckless or irresponsible they were, those days are largely over.
And as it turns out, the handful of Americans who remain die-hard supporters of Bush and the war aren’t at all happy about it.
Hugh Hewitt published a very long essay on his blog today, written by someone described only as an “active duty officer” with combat experience. Basically, the officer, who isn’t shy about his far-right partisanship, believes the military respects the Republican Party, but the GOP is throwing it away by refusing to endorse the president’s fiasco in Iraq.
The cost of this strategy by Republicans will leave a vacuum for military members. Who among us in uniform will trust ANY politician with her life? Who among our professional VOLUNTEER military class will willingly allow his children to serve knowing that neither party can be trusted to lead? The threat to American society and freedom is that no one will serve because the political class cannot be trusted with our lives and the lives of our children. […]
Republican Senators such as Chuck Hagel, John Warner and Olympia Snowe have publicly stated that the president’s planned strategy adjustment will not work and that they will not support it. I challenge each of these august public servants to go over to Bethesda Naval Hospital TODAY, find a seriously wounded Marine and say to him, “Son your sacrifice was in vain.” GO TODAY Senator. Stand up and be counted. If your vote for the war was wrong, say so today and do what any decent officer would do, resign. Resign immediately.
I applaud this officer’s willingness to serve, but does any of this make any sense?
As the writer sees it, if Republican lawmakers decide that Bush’s policy is too disastrous to support, no one will volunteer for the armed forces anymore. In other words, if you want to keep U.S. soldiers out of the middle of a civil war, you’re not only wrong, you’re discouraging future military service. I have no idea what this means.
But it’s the second part of the quote that really stands out. For a Republican lawmaker to disagree with Bush’s policy (a policy, not incidentally, which has been criticized by a series of retired and active-duty military leaders, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff), is to insult the troops. Indeed, it’s grounds for resignation.
Haven’t we already heard enough of the “sacrifice in vain” argument, which never made any sense and has already been rejected by the public?
The amazing thing about this essay, which Hewitt inexplicably believes is worth profiling, is that it suggests Bush is an infallible king. It doesn’t matter what Americans, Congress, Democrats, Republicans, military leaders, rank-and-file servicemembers, or Iraqis want — if Bush says escalation is the way to go, then to disagree with escalation is to undermine America.
Andrew Sullivan put it this way:
Hewitt’s politics seems to consist in the view that no criticism of the president’s conduct of a war is permissible in a democracy, and that the Senate should have no role in formulating foreign policy, or calculating the risks of warfare. He also seems to believe that every criticism of the management of the war is a betrayal of the troops, a slap in the face to wounded troops, and treasonous to the country. He doesn’t only believe this; he believes this after one of the most disastrously-run wars in American history.
I frequently see polls showing about 15% of the public still strongly supports the president, even now, and I wonder about the perspective of these folks. In this sense, Hewitt did us a favor — he offered a glimpse into the worldview of an ardent Bush backer.
I can’t say I understand it, but it’s good to know.