What would a liberal, democratic military look like?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

The Democrats have to be pro-military, or else we aren't really a political party, since no nation exists without a military force. Let's say Democrats won the Presidency and the Congress. How would we go about building our military guided by liberal democratic principles?

[JohnKleeb]

1. I dunno

By pro military you mean, respecting those who have fallen, being for high vets benefits, good pay, hopefully not excess money on nuclear weapons. I dont know what it would look like. I am pretty far left as many of you know and some of the people I respect most are vets including my grandfather.

[demsrule4life]

2. It would look the same as now

the best epuipped, trained military in the world. Anything less is a danger to the military men and women and our country as a whole.
Army-Airforce 24 years.

[sangh0]

3. Pretty much the same

with maybe fewer nukes. Also, there would be more of an emphasis on training our troops for nation-building and peacekeeping functions.

[im4edwards]

4. there can be no democracy in the military

there can be discussion but there has to be one who decides and the rest obey. You can also push decision making down to the lowest level for certain things and we do that but command is critical.

[pippin]

6. would include

function akin to a cross between WPA and peace corps?

[Sinistrous]

5. "Liberal democratic military" is an oxymoron.

What do you intend to be democratic about the military?

The internal operation of the military can never be "democratic", simply by the nature of the nature of its purpose, i.e. killing people.

Democrats can, however, define the purposes to which the military can be put. The "democratic" aspect comes in the debates before use of the military is authorized.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. that's what I mean, but...

Why can't there be democracy in the military? Why couldn't a unit elect one of it's own as it's officer? Why couldn't the officers of each unit elect one of their own as their lead officer?

I seem to remember a very powerful army last century that worked along similar lines...

[JohnKleeb]

8. who?

is that powerful army

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. I believe it was called

the "Red Army"

[JohnKleeb]

12. I thought so

Just dont let Stalin get his hands on it lol. Oh the Red Army, the original come back kids. I really gotta admire them, it seemed impossible to beat the Germans but they didnt give up. My grandfather a Korean war vet said one of the problems is that the officers dont lead the troops in to battle anymore or something like that, he says a noncom does and he admires the British because according to him their officers lead the way. I dont know.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. the democratic part was destroyed before Stalin

From what my friend (ex-Soviet forces) told me, it was a general under Lenin that ended all democratic participation in the Red Army, and by the time Stalin was around, it was a typical western-style army, and quite good from what I've heard. I'm sure they had a hard time getting a democratic army to fire on strikers, so the democracy was the first to go. The commies never liked democracy and got rid of it as soon as they could.

[JohnKleeb]

19. You know a Soviet vet

WOW! That sucks. I hate Stalin. Well not all commies are evil and undemocratic, knowing what he did I think I would prefer Gorbechev to Reagan. I think one of the communists I admire is Dubcek, that poor guy had to renounce his cause after the Soviets invaded.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. yep, he was in Afghanistan

and you wouldn't believe the horror stories I've heard. I'm pretty damned anti-communist myself, and I include Lenin as one of the worst dictators around. My anti-communism is due in part to listening to my many friends from the ex-USSR, none of which has anything good to say about it.

[JohnKleeb]

26. of course I despise soviet communism

[DoNotRefill]

30. "and quite good from what I've heard"

It depends. Man for man, they sucked. Put 100 Russians against 100 Germans with the same level of equipment, and they would get their asses handed to them every time. However, quantity has a quality all it's own.

Here's something for you to ponder...at the start of Barbarossa in '42, the Germans had 1.5 million troops attacking FIFTEEN million Soviet troops on their front line ALONE, and they stomped all over them until winter set in and they started freezing to death. Had Barbarossa started when planned, in early May instead of late June, it's very likely that the Nazis would have knocked the Soviets out of the war that first summer.

The NKVD had machinegun detachments attached to most regular Red Army assault units. They weren't there to support the attack, they were there to machinegun Soviet soldiers who were thrown back when the attack failed.

[HawkerHurricane]

21. Try 'The Union Army'

Junior officers in militia units were 'elected' by the units.

Abraham Lincoln was elected 'Captain' of his company during the Blackhawk war.

I wouldn't recommend it, though. Just pointing it out.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. really?

It figures that the US would have had the first democratic army (I'm assuming it was the first).

The Union did win, so perhaps it's not such a bad idea?

[HawkerHurricane]

24. Only the early war units had elected leaders

As the war went on, more junior leaders were veterans of earlier units, especially those of 'good families' (well connected and wealthy). The Union army suffered from a large number of officers appointed because of political connections, especially in the militias.

[JohnKleeb]

27. You are right hawker

Thanks for this info

[im4edwards]

9. the military takes action on political descisions

its only job is to be prepared to do what it is asked to do. That could be peacekeeping, observation, humanitarian aid, rescue, intellegence, warfare or infrastructure repair. Or any combination of the above and other things that have not occurred to me.

[Don_G]

11. The Military Isn't Democratic By Necessity

However, a Democratic Administration can either ban Limpballz from the Armed Forces Radio/Television Network or provide Malloy or another liberal host equal time (hopefully in a better time slot.)

Not all of the military are Rethuglican pukes. I point out our own HawkerHurricane for example and also bring to your attention that he may have a better "feel" since he's currently serving in the Navy.

[Padraig18]

14. I agree

My b/f was USMC (8 years), and he's about as 'liberal' a thinker socially as they come; he definitely busts the "Marines are all knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" stereotype all to hell, and he says he's not THAT unique. :)

[JohnKleeb]

17. interesting

Well I am not a vet, I have family that are and are dems, now on the marines, I am not sure if I am related to Sgt. Mike Strank a flagraiser on Iwo Jima but I am almost certain he was a democrat. I dont like the military are republican myth either, my grandfather can tell you that, hes a Korean war vet.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. liberal military

multi-lingual - attractive to immigrants. info and tech savvy - offer more incentives to get tech-capable high school grads (who possess more tech savvy than any generation at any point in history) in intel and communications positions. open-minded - be less stringent on victimless crimes for admission into military and intelligence positions, additionally, we need to accept gays in the military wholeheartedly and stop using half-measured language which becomes institutionalized. allies - we need more allies, not less - which is why we need a new commander in chief. conversely, I believe we need to be willing to field OUR troops, not mercernary locals (a la the British Empire, a la Northern Alliance) when we are going after fascists like UBL. We also need to patiently clean up Bush's mess in Iraq, being careful to not leave a power vaccuum which would foster religious fanaticism.

[Aidoneus]

16. The Friends of Durutti?

.

[paradisiac]

18. for one thing, it wouldn't be

used to invade countries that don't pose a threat to the USA (e.g., Iraq). It wouldn't be used to further the aims of PNAC, which get our soldiers needlessly killed.

[HawkerHurricane]

23. Well...

Fewer jobs contracted out to private firms.

More money to VA.

Bonus pays made more consistant, and no trying to cut them during a war.

Better care for the junior people.

Eliminate old equipment, reduce the size of the force, but carefully...nothing is more expensive than a second best military.

Better planing for missions...fewer pointless missions.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. this is exactly what I meant

while I think the idea of internal democracy in the armed forces is great, what I meant by this thread was more how a Democratic government would build the army. All your suggestions are exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.

Someone gave me this link earlier about the military, the left, and socialism:

http://www.freedomroad.org/milmatters_1_left&military.html

[DBoon]

25. Like the Dutch military??

Aside from that it would be vastly smaller, and designed to protect US territory and citizens, rather than building an empire

[JohnKleeb]

28. thats what I though about too

[leftyandproud]

31. smaller..

MUCH smaller, as it should be. We have far more pressing needs than a 300 billion++ military budget.

[maggrwaggr]

32. compassionate killers

Listen, you join the military, your job is to kill people and blow stuff up.

Trying to project our democratic liberal values into the military is like trying to make a lion into a vegetarian.

I mean, I'm all for as many military men and women being Democrats as possible, but to try to turn them into the Peace Corps is just ........ well, it's a little disconnected from the reality of the military.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. I certainly don't want the military to turn into the peace corp

actually, I don't even think we should have US peacekeepers or nation builders, that's all for the UN. But I don't think the military is incompatible with democratic liberal values at all - it's integrated, has universal health care and free housing for starters.

[demsrule4life]

37. Military does not have free housing

Military pays you to live off base, if you want to live on base you lose that extra money, that is the reason with 24 years in the miilitary and raising three kids I never lived in base housing, lose to much money.

[RichM]

33. Your question ignores underlying issues, & assumes much that

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.

[nolabels]

38. Anybody that knows something about Geo politics knows how ........

stuck the US really is with this role. We can no more abandon it than a leopard his spots. Any serious perceived weakness ends in problems like the ones we saw in the early 80s. The pubs would like to blame the problems in the early 80s on the Dems but it mostly was because of the failure in South East Asia, and few other problems Nixon and Johnson with crew got us involved in (Nixon and Johnson both over extended).

The capitalist have been running much of US policy for the last 60 years, failing to give real world bodies the needed authority they needed. It has in effect built the cage that surrounds it, and has no place to go. They cannot give back the keys, for the backlash would devastate the US economy. They also cannot fight all the wars that seem to be brewing because the US is already mortgaged to the nostrils now and still trying to figure out how to tread water. The only option that was logical was that of the PNAC, but we know people are hip to that and throwing wrenches in the machine even at this moment.

The only way to cool things off is for * to go to the UN and say "uncle" and this is also something everybody knows that will never happen. So my best guess is we all will have to wait and see what gives out first. All the while we will be dealing with a dark cloud that we are living in at this present time.

As for the original question about what something is titled, I rest my case on the handle of my screen name. Why try to categorize something that you cannot quite identify? I would rather deal with it, and let some linguist or professiona reporters try to report on what it really is.

[quaker bill]

34. Smaller

Nations exist without a significant military, Switzerland and Costa Rica are exmaples.

That being aside, realistically this country probably needs a military at the present.

I would choose to steadily reduce it's size over the course of many years.

The eventual goal being a reduced military as a means to limit the temptation toward unilateral interventionism.

[blondeatlast]

35. Soldiers over 30 (idea is CheshireCat's)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=438769

post #9.

[jiacinto]

39. Three Things

1) They would be paid and get decent benefits.

2) VA Hospitals would be fully funded.

3) They would be valued more than cosmetics.

4) The military would provide more aid to enable its soldiers to get the best education possible.