To follow up on my earlier thought that national security may be an area where nonpartisanship has a chance to get reestablished, David Broder's column today is pretty perceptive. He suggests Pres. Obama has moved through the same learning curve as other Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who often have realized once they are in office that the demands of national security are overriding, and will trump campaign promises. Broder also rightly points out that many Democrats, steeped in the lore of anti-war, are lamenting Obama's recent decisions, but will continue to be disappointed.
Someone in my neighborhood has a bumper sticker on his car that reads "War Is Not the Answer." I would guess that person is one of the democrats who might complain about Obama's "backsliding" on campaign promises. But the only correct reaction to this bumper sticker is, "It Depends On the Question." The reality is that war is a valid instrument of national policy that may at times be necessary.
What both parties ought to have learned by now is that getting into a war is the easy part; getting out, once it's bogged down and has become unpopular, is much more difficult and costly. Lyndon Johnson learned this finishing Kennedy's war; Obama is now learning it finishing Bush's war. It's just a bit more tragic when the inherited war was started without any serious analysis of its necessity or its outcome. No matter how pointless the war, the heir to it has to try to ensure that it ends in a way that doesn't do more harm than good to U.S. goals or credibility.
What we can (and should) do is use diplomacy to its fullest, be prepared to go to war but not make it our first answer to everything. By doing so we might actually be able to afford to educate our kids, feed our poor, and such, while still maintaining a strong national defense.
Broder also says recent Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama) have been more uncomfortable dealing with military matters because they have not themselves served in the military. But that's also true of our most recent Republican President. George W. Bush was in the National Guard and may have picked up a little jargon and institutional knowledge there. But career military officers - indeed, anybody who was of eligible age in the Vietnam draft era - know that in those days, the Guard was hardly ever called up except temporarily for natural disasters. Getting into the Guard back then was a draft dodge, almost as safe as going to Canada but more honorable. It was great for the sons of prominent politicians, for it gave them a form of virtual military service.
There are two issues raised here. First, we do now have a trend of three consecutive Presidents who have had no serious military service. That's largely because we abandoned conscription after Vietnam; we'd better get used to it because it just reflects how our society has changed over 50 years. (If "Swift Boat Veterans" were concerned about the problem, they would not have savaged Kerry, who did have true service.)
Second, we should recognize that the National Guard has also changed immeasurably in those same 50 years; in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we know, many units have been called up; they've served admirably, but it's not the citizen-soldier deal they signed up for, and I have to wonder how recruiting for the Guard will fare in the next decade or two. Perhaps, though, we will have a President some day who had the reality of military experience through this channel.
Comments