Reply #33: Your question ignores underlying issues, & assumes much that

[RichM]

is untrue.

First, you say that to be a political party, it's necessary to be pro-military. This is obviously untrue, even in this aggressive militaristic country. There are lots of tiny parties you never heard of whose platform calls for severe cuts in the military budget, or abolishing the Pentagon altogether. The reason Democrats are pro-military has nothing to do with defending Americans; & it is the exact same reason Republicans are pro-military. Namely, the corporate oligarchy likes to have a big army, to protect its own interests; to enforce its will abroad; and because the MIC itself is big, hugely profitable business. Both parties are slaves to these things; there is little significant difference between them in this area.

Second, you are pretending that Democrats could build a "liberal democratic" army, while Republicans couldn't. You are kidding yourself. As someone posted above, the army's function is killing people; you can't make a lion into a vegetarian, etc. There is no such thing as a "nice" army. Your whole question ignores what the army really is (organized killers), what its social function is (serving the corporate oligarchy), & what the Democratic Party is (only slightly less evil than Republicans, and not really different when it comes to things military).

The best answer to what a "better" military would look like was stated above: "smaller." A heck of a lot smaller.