I think if you are in the military you should not be publicly taking part in political events or shows such as the Yearly Kos convention.

As Dr. Ken stated it is leading to the pro-war people to look for their own activists to counter the ones the anti-war types have planted or recruited from the ranks. Like the vast majority of servicemembers, I worked just as hard for Clinton as I am for Bush but if this politicization of the military continues I have to wonder if it will always stay that way.

You’re spot on when it comes to a couple of things. First, military iopinion is far from unanimous. I’m glad it’s not. The only way it could be is if people with a certain range of views didn’t join the military at all.

Secondly, Washington didn’t send the money we all need to get the job done. The Army should be much larger in manpower, and we all should have the money we need to replace old equipment and buy what’s needed to protect the troops. Back in 2003 an Army three-star called for a Manhattan-style project to solve IEDs. The technology has real potential in several forms but the money isn’t there yet. Any second now, you @#$%% politicians! I guess there’s just not that geeat a constituency for our young folks not getting blown up.

Anyway, getting back to Forward Deployed’s post, there’s this problem. If the very dishonest anti-war side pulls out their uniformed activists, then the pro-war activist side either concedes that part of the public perception batlespace to their opponents (I was going to say enemy but caught myself) or brings out their own uniformed activists. At some point we’re all dragged into the gutter, which is bad for the country. The services as institutions need to be non-political and perceived as such. I say that as a very ideological conservative who has been criticizing Bush as too liberal since late 1999.

Maybe there’s a way for the honest media (if there are any) to remind all those clueless civilians that there are as many military opinions as there are military people, then the shine comes off your opinion, mine, and Soltz’s all at the same time.

I think the real truth is that there is not the unanimity of thought that every one presumes is in the military. I’ve got plenty of friends who are opposed to the war in Iraq. Even if they are neutral on the subject they sure as hell hate having the threat of going there hanging over their heads.

Furthremore, it still gets to the heart of a another question. Just because politicians make decisions to use military force-that does not always mean it was the wisest thing to do. Despite all the talk of victory-NO ONE can show when that translates into troop levels dropping significantly and the PERSTEMPO train wreck that the Army and Marine Corps are experiencing getting any better. The term long war does not really cut it, because if it really is a long war than why do the politcians who signed us up for it-get a free pass for not resourcing the armed forces for that war? They should not.

The Democrats don’t know enough to ask the right questions out of their veteran politicians. Otherwise they would grasp at straws like Kerry. They will get better at it as they get more veterans in the party. Same holds true with Republicans-just look at some of the voting records of supposedly “pro defense” Republicans who have voted to screw veterans and active duty when it comes to benefits that are earned?

Bottom line-is politicians are the ones politcizing the military by using it to demonize those who truly beleive (like me) that the President’s little detour into Iraq was not in the best interests of the country, the US military or for that matter the damn Arabs.