SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 13, 2010 10:41:55 GMT -5
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Nov 13, 2010 13:11:20 GMT -5
In the same way that the Army-Navy game doesn't hold the same importance as it once did, its more of a matter (as the Politico author mentions) of the military being a different animal than it was decades ago.
It would have been interesting to have declared in the 60's or 70's that there would never be a Vietnam vet president (in all likelyhood), I don't think many would have believed it
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 13, 2010 13:24:19 GMT -5
If you are referring to the fact that the US military is now an all volunteer force, no question about it. But I wonder whether politicians who have very little real understanding of what it means to be in the military can truly grasp the real world consequences of decisions they make. Some senior US Army officers (0-6s) I work with have indicated to me how they "hate" Washington, D.C. in fairly contempestuous language. I don't find that a bit troubling. Some soldiers I work with have done 3 and 4 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ops tempo is taking its toll. Other than mouthing platitudes, I don't see that the politicians really get it.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Nov 13, 2010 15:55:51 GMT -5
If you are referring to the fact that the US military is now an all volunteer force, no question about it. But I wonder whether politicians who have very little real understanding of what it means to be in the military can truly grasp the real world consequences of decisions they make. Some senior US Army officers (0-6s) I work with have indicated to me how they "hate" Washington, D.C. in fairly contempestuous language. I don't find that a bit troubling. Some soldiers I work with have done 3 and 4 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ops tempo is taking its toll. Other than mouthing platitudes, I don't see that the politicians really get it. But on the same token people serving in Vietnam were saying the same things when Washington was full of WWII vets. Part of the issue is that Congress has very limited influence on military issues beyond general funding (and of course approving wars and such). Congressmen are just more visible than the relatively anonymous suits in the Pentagon. Although by definition there just wont be that many veterans of Afghanistand and Iraq, it would be interesting if the vets do form some sort of VFW interest group/voting bloc |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,909
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 13, 2010 16:37:33 GMT -5
There are huuuge generational divisions within the military (and probably always have been). Tee O-6s may hate Washington - and they're not unlikely to include a certain polygonal Arlington structure in that formulation - but you can rest assured the O-2s and O-3s have massive grievances against the field grade layer. The enlisted ranks are even more acrimonious, both inside and outside.
As for the initial topic... I think this is just the culmination of a historical trend, at least when it comes to presidential candidates. The major candidate with the more extensive/impressive service record usually loses.
McCain lost to Obama, Kerry lost to Bush, Gore kinda sorta lost to Bush (this one is close, but I'll take "being a military journalist and actually being in-country in Vietnam to be a more consequential record than defending Texas airspace from the Viet Cong in a combat-unsuitable Thunderchief), Dole lost to Clinton, Bush 41 lost to Clinton. Bush beating Dukakis bucks this trend, Reagan vs. Mondale is a push, but Carter's loss to Reagan fits the profile, as does Ford losing to Carter, as does McGovern losing to Nixon. The pattern peters out after that, although Goldwater's record certainly trumps LBJ's.
|
|
