Military, politics need to keep their distance

When 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, a National Guardsman and Iraq veteran, delivered the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address on Saturday, criticizing the administration's war planning and operations, people took notice.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who usually has an unerring sense of healthy civil-military relations, thought Rieckhoff had crossed "a clear line between civilian and military in America, as far as politics is concerned."

McCain is a little late. That line has already been obliterated. The only reason Rieckhoff attracted attention was because he wasn't following the military's party line. No one would have looked twice if he publicly supported our current efforts. Rieckhoff is just the latest addition to a presidential campaign already rife with dueling military voices.

Federal law regulates the political interaction between civilians and the military because of the real potential for undue influence when uniformed personnel cross paths with the voting process. The principle is vital to our constitutional democracy, yet it seems to have been completely forgotten or discarded.

Some suggest the military vote could tip the balance in 2004 just as it did in 2000. So it's no surprise that both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have been shamelessly wooing service members.

As commander in chief, Bush can make his pitches to the 101st Airborne in person, as he did on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Kerry had to make do with a speech the day before at George Washington University touting his "Military Family Bill of Rights."

Such overtures may be politically expedient, but they help create an environment in which the military is seen as just another voting demographic. It is not. Service members have the same right to vote as you and I. But they also have a special responsibility to remain politically neutral under any circumstances in which their partisan allegiance might be connected to the uniform. Expressions of partisan support violate the military's long-standing professional and constitutional ethic of political neutrality.

Just after the end of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court reminded us in Greer v. Spock that the military has an obligation under the Constitution to avoid "both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes."

In a nation built on civilian control of the military, the people holding the weapons should never appear to influence the votes of the citizens they protect.

More subtly, the military can also wield undue partisan influence just because the military is so widely admired. So it's a problem when Bush's appearances at military installations are met with a sea of whooping, hollering service members who act as if they're at a political rally. Their partisan behavior is unprofessional, and the military knows it. The Republican Party, which bills itself as the party that understands the military, ought to know it too.

Both presidential candidates have a constitutional obligation to take care in how they seek the endorsement of individual service members. Attempts to paint the military as either Republican or Democratic tinker dangerously with the obligation of political neutrality that keeps civilian control strong.

Mazur is a hypocrite and partisan Democrat hack. She wants to censor the mythical overwhelmingly Republican (yet lower class!) volunteer military until after we draft a bunch of rich Democrats that loathe military service so that they can have a more credible voice in national security matters. You know, people like Senator John Forbes Kerry that "volunteered" after he had his Paris deferment denied, faked his injuries to leave duty early and then slandered those that were still serving.

Other Mazur gems:

Corpus Christi Caller-Times [TX] – (3.1) UF Research Foundation Professor of Law Diane Mazur quoted on possible deterioration of allegiance between veterans and Republican Party due to President Bush’s alleged politically-driven war decisions.

Cox News Service [GA] – (3.7) Professor Mazur quoted on military voters feeling let down by Republican Party and possibility of their votes swinging Democratic in upcoming presidential election. [Cox News services 17 daily, 25 weekly newspapers.)

Scripps Howard News Service [Washington, D.C.] – (2.11) Professor of Law Diane Mazur quoted on opportunity for Democrats to attempt to gain military vote in 2004 presidential election.

Albany Times-Union – (1.11) Publishes Professor of Law Diane Mazur’s op-ed piece about societal changes due to end of U.S. military draft. [Piece originally run 12.28 in Chicago Tribune; also in January in Long Island Newsday (2nd), Detroit News (6th), Myrtle Beach Sun News (8th), Spokane Spokesman-Review (7th), Mobile Register (6th), Gainesville Sun (8th), Stars and Stripes [U.S. Department of Defense overseas publication, 6th)], and Fort Worth Star Telegram, Ann Arbor News, Newark Star-Ledger (8th)]

One of the great things about the military is it shatters all the liberals' myths. For example, the military is overwhelmingly Republican AND disproportionately lower class!

According to Prof. Mazur, the military is overwhelmingly Republican AND voluntary, so to improve the balance in civil-military relations we have to bring back the draft. Why? So more rich Democrats will have a mandated military service bona fides? Is compulsory service resentment among liberal, affluent Democrats an important missing component from our civil-military relations?

Why does Prof. Mazur advise us to censor a liberal Amherst alum, former Wall Street analyst, and post-active duty veteran who is speaking on the Kerry campaign's dime? Because he wasn't drafted? And why does she hypocritically inform us of her military rank and previous military occupational skills in the bio of her political opinion pieces?

Liberal ivy league schools have banned ROTC on campus since Vietnam, but liberals now complain that the siblings of the affluent and elite don't serve? Liberals disparage military service as economically compulsory for minorities and the poor, resulting in disproportionate representation, but complain about a conservative and Republican bias in the military that should be kept out of the public debate?

I guess it's all about nuance.

What gets me about the proposed draft that is tossed around Washington like a frisbee is: For every person forced into military service, a poor minority will likely lose his job.

I won't even bother getting into training concerns, or how large a force we'd be forced to maintain just to ensure that we have combat abilities in the ramp up for a draft..

And we all know what will happen if a draft is installed -- the children of privledge will avoid the effects through deferments. Kerry's was refused, which puts him in the minority.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.