Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
he was just another character to his buddies who covered his back like he covered theirs.
|
Well, that's the one thing that makes them different. Even below agverage people can have honor, even people with ulterior motives for joining up can be credited with altruism when they put their lives and health at risk. It doesn't elevate them to superhero status to join the military, but it does make them special.
Mostly what I'm concerned with is the idea that the armed forces are somehow subverting the democratic process when all they are attempting is to complete their mission. If those service men and women have something to speak out about they can wait to say it when their terms of service end, and in all but rare cases that's what happens. I'm certain that they all have different opinions about the war in Iraq, but in the interest of solidarity they keep their opinions private. If the military did have a political agenda it simply would not be able to function as a single unit, and recruitment rates would drop sharply. This is the one American institution that has to be perfectly neutral, and the fact that it has accomplished anything is evidence that it is neutral.
The commander in chief is a civilian. Not only is he allowed to be biased, his job often requires him to be biased. In no way does that reflect on the motives of the military because their oath mentions the president's title, not his name. Whoever the president happens to be, that's who they've sworn to obey. Sure, the president can abuse his power for political purposes, but because the military obeys all of his orders and not just the ones they agree with, all the blame for their actions lies with the president.