The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Conservatives tend to think of themselves as big supporters of the military. They also tend to support a hawkish foreign policy.
If that is the case, how is it that Ron Paul leads all other Republican primary candidates and Barack Obama in military donations? This was also the case during the 2008 primary.
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist who has been critical of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Are conservatives out of step with those serving in the military or the military out of step with American interests? What do you guys think?
More on this from The New American, Politifact, and Digital Journal.
(The image comes from a weekly military newspaper published at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Wash.. The front page story, "You Want Him," is about how Ron Paul leads all other candidates in military donations.)
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
The former, hands down. With perhaps a handful of adventurous, adrenaline junkies in the combat arms who actually like the thrill of conflict, I'd wager that most military personnel don't want to wage a war; they acknowledge the necessity of a war when it arises, but the length and incoherence of our current wars negatively affect their resolve.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Violence during war is expected. Violence during never-ending nation-building gets old.
Jun '11
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Agree with Michael, not a surprise. Paul's reflexive anti-intervention stance is problematic, but the prosecution of our "wars" is incoherent at best. I can't imagine the frustration of re-re-redeployment.
In his quote, Paul did throw in an Obamaism. The troops in Afghanistan will be waiting a while for the ships to get there.
Apr '11
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
GI's sometimes casually throw out a line like, "What this country needs is a good war." But most combat GI's I know at the very least temper the line into something like, "What this country needs is a good, low-threat, high-per-diem war."
I know many troops who are "available" for combat, because someone has to do it. I know none who are eager for it (although I'm certain there are avid war-fighters out there).
Aug '11
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Perhaps military personnel favor Ron Paul because he is the only candidate who is talking about our endless, futile war in Afghanistan.
While Perry, Romney and Bachmann prattle on endlessly about social security, health care and HPV vaccinations, soldiers are sacrificing and dying in a war most Americans now oppose.
It should be no surprise that soldiers appreciate the candidate who is the only one who forthrightly questions the war.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Ditto to everyone. Military personnel, for the most part, don't want to be in harm's way. They may have thought BO would fix that, but they believe Ron Paul will...
Mar '11
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Well, it seems like everyone here understands the military. So does that mean the military is out of step with American interests, or should conservatives be supporting Ron Paul?
(See what I did there with the false dichotomy?)
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
We've been at war for ten years. Ron Paul is the only candidate who speaks to the fatigue felt by those of us who've been at it for the last decade. As well, he's the only candidate who consistently talks about freedom and liberty, concepts to which uniformed servicemembers have a visceral connection.
Edited on September 27, 2011 at 9:02pmMay '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Michael Labeit
The former, hands down. With perhaps a handful of adventurous, adrenaline junkies in the combat arms who actually like the thrill of conflict, I'd wager that most military personnel don't want to wage a war; they acknowledge the necessity of a war when it arises, but the length and incoherence of our current wars negatively affect their resolve. · Sep 26 at 9:00pm
Michael, you put it perfectly.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
While Michael is right that "most military personnel don't want to wage a war", and yes as Casey can attest there is fatigue in the ranks, but that does not mean that military personnel will reflexively default to a candidate with isolationist views.
That is not to say that support for Paul doesn't exist, but I for one haven't seen a outpouring of support for him, or any candidate for that matter. It is early, and I think that the Paulites are more motivated in general and donate early and often.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Just a couple of more comments on this...
First, this is not really new as the data is as of the end of June (last quarterly report to FEC), before the campaign really got rolling.
Second, a quick scan of that quarterly report to the FEC shows what is probably less than 100 individual donors (and not all were "Military", some were DoD Civs and Contractors). So can we really make broad judgements about the military based on that number?
Third, there was a link in the Digital Journal article that showed that during the same time period in 2008, Paul led John McCain by a considerable amount as well. So does this really mean much?
As I said in my previous post, I think that what this really shows is that Paulites (military & non-military) are more motivated/committed earlier in the process, while most everyone else is waiting to see how things shake out.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
I think Charles has it right. And I would add two other points.
1) Defense contractors hate wars; so do officers who go for career fields (e.g., quartermaster) that are more administrative. Why? Because their lives are screwed up by wars, which wreak havoc on business plans and all those nice neat programs to fill the stockpile goals, on-going R&D programs, etc. With wars, all the money goes for personnel and replenishing fielded hardware; God help your new fighter aircraft or combat vehicle project in engineering development or early production. The best scenario for defense contractors is a huge well-recognized threat responsive to technological solutions (to keep the DoD budget healthy) and no wars at all.
2) If the majority of our active duty warfighters favor Paul because he is an isolationist, I hope they all resign as soon as possible. We have the wrong people out there.
Regarding the 10 years of current wars, if that is too long, we are finished as a viable power. Reading "The 10,000 Day War" shows that the biggest mistakes we made over and over in Vietnam related to excess force to try to quickly.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Duane Oyen:
2) If the majority of our active duty warfighters favor Paul because he is an isolationist, I hope they all resign as soon as possible. We have the wrong people out there.
Regarding the 10 years of current wars, if that is too long, we are finished as a viable power. Reading "The 10,000 Day War" shows that the biggest mistakes we made over and over in Vietnam related to excess force to try to quickly. · Sep 28 at 1:22pm
Do you really think that Ron Paul supporters don't belong in the military?
What is our goal in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Ten years is certainly too long when we don't have any clear strategy and the mission, as understood by the average Joe, changes several times during a 12-month deployment. Add that to the fact that we're cutting overall military spending and personnel levels at a time when they need to increase for the foreseeable future just to reset from ten years of continuous war.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Casey, please look at my exact statement. Of course, Ron Paul supporters can be in the military- I said that if they "favor Paul because he is an isolationist", they don't belong in the military. There can be other reasons they like Paul, particularly his domestic libertarianism (though I am not as far out on that wing, I admit).
Frankly, I disagree that the mission really changes. What people of all views say about the mission changes. The fundamental mission didn't change until Obama took over.
The Afghanistan incursion clearly was payback, combined with draining the immediate swamp. The mission enlarged, but still included keep the swamp drained. Iraq was a fundamental recognition that there needs to be one operational base in that part of the world- US land troops right on the border of Saudi Arabia, Iran, near Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey, a forward base from which to act quickly when needed. In the process, build institutions and clean infection as much as possible. It is a 50 year quest, more important than, but similar to, Korea.
Obama's vision-challenged approach obviously destroys progress as he pulls troops out for short term electoral base reasons.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
That's why I ask for clarification, mon ami!
Of course the mission changes, and it changed repeatedly while Bush was still president. I've so far spent half my career overseas, both as a junior rifleman and a senior NCO, and from the beginning the mission, ROE/RUF, etc., all changed twice yearly -- minimum. That's schizophrenic, and we can't fight effectively that way. It's one of the main complaints our junior Soldiers have for us, and it's consequently one of the main complaints we have for the SMA and his boss.
We accomplished our primary missions in Afghanistan five years ago, the same for Iraq in 2008. Staying in those countries presents a unique set of challenges, primarily financial, that we didn't face during the Cold War. And I'm not sure our country is ready to support the kind of commitment that we'll need to continue. I'm certain that our politicians don't have the vision or the will to do so.
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Casey Taylor
That's why I ask for clarification, mon ami!
Of course the mission changes, and it changed repeatedly while Bush was still president. ...... and from the beginning the mission, ROE/RUF, etc., all changed twice yearly -- minimum. That's schizophrenic, and we can't fight effectively that way. It's one of the main complaints our junior Soldiers have for us, and it's consequently one of the main complaints we have for the SMA and his boss.
..................... And I'm not sure our country is ready to support the kind of commitment that we'll need to continue. I'm certain that our politicians don't have the vision or the will to do so. · Sep 29 at 8:59pm
I understand, Casey; thanks for the clarification.
Let me ask whether the actual strategic mission changed, or the rationale given to the troops in the field changed, or the immediate tactical mission- plus tactics- was what changed? I think we may have a terminology issue here.
I agree with your highlighted statement, and strongly regret that it is probably true. It may well spell the end of the US as world leader.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Duane Oyen
I understand, Casey; thanks for the clarification.
Let me ask whether the actual strategic mission changed, or the rationale given to the troops in the field changed, or the immediate tactical mission- plus tactics- was what changed? I think we may have a terminology issue here.
I agree with your highlighted statement, and strongly regret that it is probably true. It may well spell the end of the US as world leader. · Sep 30 at 2:52pm
That's the thing, Duane; it doesn't matter what the strategic mission is or was, the constant change in ROE/RUF paralyzes combatant Commanders, and therefore their men. Imagine what kind of damage it does to have a unit go from kicking in doors and arresting any males in a house one month, to knocking on the same doors and leaving a couple of hundred dollars with downcast eyes the next. It's confusing for everyone involved, and humiliating. And we've been doing it since day one. Every new O6 taking control of battle space has his own vision of the war and how it's to be prosecuted, but it changes every 10 months with new commanders.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
Additionally, why the hell are we still in Germany and Italy? We have the a deep-water harbor ready and waiting for us in Dubrovnik, Croatia, airfields aplenty in Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania, and massive training areas primed and ready all over the former ComBloc. On the cheap and a lot closer to where the action is, to boot. Yet we're still renewing our leases and renegotiating SOFAs (at a loss, btw) in Western Europe. Why?
May '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
The State Department's perceived need to obtain concurrence of Germany and France for its diplomatic maneuvers, I would sneeringly say. I think that a long term base in Iraq is far more important than one in Germany.
Regarding the other point, the classic problem with all military engagements is that the best laid plans don't survive contact with the enemy; this gets worse with every new conflict. My observation was that George Casey was like the caretaker CEOs in large corporations- e.g., leaders of GM for the last 25 years. I ran into dozens of them in the Pentagon.
O6's who want to make "the list" follow their perception of the official line. BG McMaster thought for himself, and was only added by Petraeus over the objections of the Regular Army.
Jun '10
Re: The Military Loves Ron Paul?
I can't really add anything to that, Duane, though I've been brainstorming something pithy to say. The only thing I might add is a big "+1" to your admiration of BG McMaster; that guy's my hero.