Today I read an article about veteran’s and military members shifting strongly toward President Obama. The writer asserts that “Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict.” Apparently Margot Roosevelt has no idea what Shock and Awe is or she would know that it has nothing to do with the way we have waged war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places for the past four years.
Or military has been mired in a limited war or “Operations Other Than War (OOTW)” during that time. They have been hampered by ROE (Rules of Engagement) the likes of which two generations of military leaders have been trying to avoid since the Vietnam Conflict ended 40 years ago—yet another promise not kept to the Vietnam vets.
This article is an obvious attempt to make Obama seem more attractive to the military community and from the comment section it seems to be effective to some degree. I like to think military people who have been out at the pointy end of the pen writing history would be smart enough to know who has been driving that pen for the past four years. Ms. Roosevelt goes on to state “factually” that “If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.” Of course, there is no poll cited for her statement because she made it up.
From 2001 until 2008 the media made a point of broadcasting the numbers of KIA weekly and the running totals reported every night. We heard "This has been the deadliest week for US forces since (whenever)" on a regular basis. Each Sunday’s PARADE section of the paper had the full color pictures of those killed in the past week.
The media did not do that because they suddenly cared for the military (they haven't since WWII). They did it to erode faith in the GOP and President Bush. Democratic candidates ran on promises to end the bloodshed. Obama rose to the top of the heap by being the biggest anti-war dove in the pack. He attacked Bush on all facets of conducting the War on Terror and swore to end the violence and bring the troops home in a year. How's that working out for you?
Was it Mitt Romney or BH Obama running around the end zone spiking Bin Laden's head for the 253rd time? Wasn't it Obama saying "Mitt Romney wouldn't have the courage to pull the trigger" on bin Laden? In light of his actions, posturing and words, which candidate seems less likely to send troops to war? Obama is clearly trying to seem like a military war hero and he is willing to send troops anywhere for any reason to prove it.
Obama did not keep one of his promises on the war. He did not reverse any of Bush's policies in fighting it; he even claimed credit for every success those policies generated. The fact is, he could not care less for the men and women in uniform. He is still reluctant to return a salute. The troops have spent more time at war, not less. And despite media collusion, soldiers have NOT stopped dying under his watch. They still return in flag-draped coffins; the media has found it prudent for their man in office if they don't publish pictures of them.
And that is the worst of it. Living or dead, the democrats see military people as tools for their own political ends and not the brave protectors of Liberty that most Americans know them to be. They are . . . WE are . . . your sons, husbands and fathers; wives, mothers and daughters. We deserve a man in office who will care more for the lives he sends to war than the tiny ticks in poll numbers as he goes off to another round of golf.