![]() |
|
May 14, 2007
Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported on the Democrats' campaign to end their party's decades-long anti-military image. How they're going about it, however, is revealing of the differences between the parties: Even as they press for withdrawal from Iraq, congressional Democrats have proposed more money for armored vehicles, shorter tours of duty for Reserve soldiers and expanded programs to care for veterans. Perfect! Veterans join at-risk children as a victim group. This theme is consistent among Democratic leaders: Falling in behind the troops, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has offered several proposals, including improvements in healthcare and disability assistance, to address the needs of soldiers and their families. She promises she will soon unveil a "GI Bill of Rights" to expand business, education and homeownership opportunities. When conservatives talk about supporting the troops, they mean doing everything possible to help them win the war they're fighting. Liberals never seem to talk about victory, but rather see "support" as turning soldiers and veterans into another victim group, dependent on government health and welfare services. Will it work? So far, at least, I think a large majority of our service personnel think of themselves as warriors rather than participants in a social welfare program. But there is a certain logic to the Democrats' approach: if one's only concern is the safety of the troops, the simple solution is never to fight. And if, like most liberals, you have no intention of ever fighting, then you might as well take credit for keeping the troops safe. But that isn't what most Americans, or most soldiers, have in mind when they think of an effective military. |