Military Times recently ran a piece breaking down the widening rift between the Obama administration and the US Military. No doubt a product of his passé, non-committal approach to utilizing history’s number one fighting force, purging of its leadership, placing its members unnecessarily and unilaterally in harm’s way for unclear causes, blurring of any discernible objectives in combat theaters, hamstringing its ability to effectively engage our enemies, throwing away hard-won victories in the name of a ludicrous foreign policy not grounded in reality, and/or using an institution built on pride and tradition as a laboratory for faculty lounge social experiments.
As is always the case with leftists, they see the military as a vast project for progressive overhaul. Although more resistant to the incursions than other federal agencies, the military is still susceptible over time to exploitation via the chain of command and, since at the end of the day it’s still the federal government, its own bureaucratic nature.
They see a dried out relic shot through with a panoply of every faux pas in the Social Justice Bible. Masculine, Caucasian, armed, patriotic, and eager to put bullets and bombs into all of their old college professors’ heroes. In the leftist mind, an organization that by necessity will contain killers isn’t culturally sensitive enough. Isn’t inclusive enough. Therefore, they do everything they can to officiate social change in the military whenever they’re in a position to. With Obama, his skin color and sycophantic media nullify the fallout from the real world consequences of change for change’s sake, enabling him to get away with more than the progressive activist politicians that preceded him.
It seems the left forgets that, to put it bluntly, the military’s job description is to blow things up and kill people. True, a lot of background support structure goes into wielding the spear, but ultimately the spear is the “point”. All that gets lost in their fervor to make the DOD yet another haven for budding bureaucrats and one more sideshow for trumpeting their social causes. Or maybe that’s the point. To undermine the worst thing to happen to progressive elitism’s ability to assert itself.
In Afghanistan, the number of US combat deaths are almost three to one for essentially the same amount of time under Obama as it was under Bush. Because, leadership. For a conflict Obama campaigned on winding down. In Iraq, the goal was to leave, period. To put as much difference in the public’s eyes between Bush and Obama as possible. Regardless at that point of justifications for going into Iraq, we were there and we were successful. Leaving as quickly as possible was only for political expedience’s sake, and served no one other than the administration.
As a result, ISIS has carved its own impromptu nation out of Iraq and Syria, where the Obama administration only a short time before was preparing to provide them military support. Obama actually planned to send the US armed forces to assist the very people they had been fighting in Iraq! Now Islamic terrorism isn’t solely dependent on the financing and asylum provided by sympathetic nations. They have their own sovereignty.
The article in the Military Times curiously doesn’t broach the topic of what Obama has done with the military in his time in office that is, you know, military. Instead, it focused more on his domestic side policies. The full repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of restrictions on women in fields previously restricted to men such as frontline combat and submarines, and the crackdown on sexual assault in the armed forces. After the last two years, asking a random service member what they think of SAPR might just get you punched in the face, possibly even sexually assaulted out of pure spite.
The modern military isn’t the unabashedly conservative enclave it has been traditionally, another factor in it drawing leftist contempt, although it still leans predominantly to the right. A side effect of when the subject of budget cuts is brought up on the Hill, liberals are stereotyped as only wanting to cut the military and conservatives as wanting to cut everything but the military. Well, that and love of Country.
Polling data of service members reveal massive shifts in opinion on social issues. But even if presidential policy changes do align with cultural shifts, leftists never do things for reasons other than their own. They desire to dress the military in drag, not sharpen its sword. The only changes the military should undertake are ones that make it a more effective war machine. The unfortunate circumstances of reality require it to exist as an instrument of death. The debate of whether or not these changes are right should occur through that prism, not feelings. Leftists are not concerned with such matters. Their changes are all important to their world view, regardless of their actual consequences when the ship is taking on water or a soldier is shell-shocked and half deaf from a mortar and covered in their friend’s blood.
The author of the article seems confused by the plummeting approval when they seem to be moving in the same direction culturally. Perhaps because they spent their column space musing on the straw man topics of the day. Contemplating the effects of homosexuals serving openly or women being alongside men in confined spaces and life-or-death situations.
It apparently never occurred to instead attribute dwindling morale on trading high level enemies for a single deserter, changing the rules of engagement, making sacrifices meaningless for political posturing, deploying troops to Ebola hot zones, the absolute train wreck that is the VA, striving to maintain OpSec only to have sensitive information splashed onto the headlines for a media campaign, the bizarre dismissal or even praising of traditional antagonists coupled with the brusque alienation of traditional allies, or maybe just good old-fashioned disregard for everything both his and their oath of service stands for.