Monday, May 24, 2010

Aren't We Still at War?

 With about 200,000 servicemembers active in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would expect that there would be more talk of these two wars in the upcoming political cycle. With most Republicans (except Rand Paul) supporting the wars, and a Democratic administration, you don't hear too much about the conflicts anymore. This seems to prove two things:

1. Republicans aren't stonewalling the President for the wars. Yes, they started before he came into office, but if the GOP was truly as divisive as they have been accused, they would block military budgets and pass mock resolutions for withdrawal. Considering they haven't done this, nor is there word of this coming in the near future, it goes to show the extraordinary politicking that the Democrats engaged in during the Bush years.

2. With a Democrat in the White House, it appears that there is no more anti-war movement. Yes, Michael Moore still makes a few rumblings, but most of the anti-war fervor has dissipated. Maybe they're sad that more Americans aren't dying, but it appears that anti-war movement has been exposed as largely drones following the anti-Bush wave of pop culture and the en vogue.

The article had a thought-provoking quote:

Yet there's something disquieting about the quiet. For one thing, it's yet another reminder of American society's separation from its professional military. As the November elections approach, candidates across the spectrum will ostentatiously wear their support for "our warriors" like body armor, which I suppose is better than the alternative. But as the troops become props, the real men and women who are sweating and taking fire and sleeping on hard ground 7,000 miles away are oddly missing from the conversation.

The situation may be more out of hand than we expected.

Bookmark our site! Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Consider advertising on our site!

No comments: