Sometimes it amazes me that some folks who say that the Left “always blames Bush,” and should get over it, still blame and fume when it comes to Bill Clinton.
Really? A bit overly partisan “get over it” selective, ain’t ya?
Let me see if I can get this straight. A man who was in the military and I were arguing over at Volconvo.com about Bill Clinton. He was still outraged because a “Commander-in-Chief should be held to a higher standard,” especially because the military demands so much discipline of their soldiers. He argued about what would happen to discipline, for example, if Seal Team 6 had found out, just before going in, that their Commander in Chief was getting BJs from an aide in the Oval Office.
My answer to that would be, “If they’re soldiers worthy of even being called ‘soldiers’ they would do their duty.”
It does seem to me this relates directly to all the current noise regarding women in combat, and recent past noise about gays even just being allowed in the military.
OK, let’s start by skipping the fact that plenty of presidents have had their affairs, from both sides of the 2 party system aisle, and the military has gone on to various victories during those times. Didn’t seem that much of a problem. It only becfame a “problem” when partisans decided that was the most important thing for them to pursue, kind of like Whitewater, mail to Socks the Cat and the practically endless list of “do anything to get him” endeavors back then.
Skip the fact the` president is a civilian and doesn’t have to hold to some highly touted “higher military standard.”
Yes, let’s skip all that. Let’s go right to how some folks selectively argue about some “higher standard:” some who rarely hold themselves to any significantly high standard. And we must ask: where should “higher standards” most apply? To any president who may never serve on any battlefield, be in any foxhole, have to have another soldier’s back, or to those who defend their nation on the battlefield?
Um, maybe on the battlefield? After all, which is worse: the soldier who refuses to do his duty by not raping a fellow soldier, or because of faults he thinks he perceives in others… or the president, who is a civilian, getting nookie while still doing paperwork?
Don’t get me wrong: neither are good.
I’m sure many might point to the string of rapes over the past few years and claim that proves women shouldn’t be in the military, or at least on the battlefield. And they might point to all the nonsense that went on during don’t ask don’t tell saying that proves gays shouldn’t be in the military. After all: let’s reward those not doing their duty by getting rid of those who wish to do their duty as soldiers. Good plan! That should increase morale.
Yes, I know the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear one person is abusing another instead of doing their job is that the abuser should get what he wanst, and the person being abused should be punished. Some “higher standard,” eh?
Where did this trange mindset come from? It’s like saying the Sandy Hook shooting proves we should have children in schools.
Part of his argument was the question, “What if Seal Team 6 had known their president was cheating on his wife by getting Hoovered in the Oval Office?” Well, since I’m sure they had heard how Obama was some terrorist loving, Socialist, Commie, Kenyan, Nazi blah, blah, blah and still did their duty, I’m guessing in the case of Clinton, since they’re good soldiers, they would have done their duty back then too. Even any soldier worth the term “soldier” would go on and do their duty, just like they should if they get the urge to go after some woman, or think someone might be gay.
But, if not, what kind of military would we have?
A broken one.
And where would our “higher” military standard be?
In our mentally ill, psychotic, imaginations: at best.
A soldier is to do his, or her, duty, despite what he or she thinks of what the president is doing, or how they feel about him. That’s the true, sensible, “higher standard.” If I were a soldier I’d be more concerned about my officers being unwilling to prosecute soldiers who’d rather rape, chase tail and bash gays than do their duty, than outraged by some admittedly ill-advised nookie in the Oval Office. I certainly wouldn’t try to make excuses for them by distracting people with, “But look at the president’s personal life…”
The problem here is not the presence of women: it’s discipline.
The problem is not the gays: it’s military discipline.
The problem is not any nookie that happens, or happened, in the Oval Office.
The problem is obvious: military discipline and a refusal in some cases to hold officers and soldiers to a real “higher standard,” whether they’re reluctant to do their duty because of Bill’s misadventures or because someone might be gay, or they want to rape a woman. I mean, really, would you want to go to war with some soldiers who think sex and their hatred for gays is more important than doing their duty? If you were someone these kind of soldiers thought was gay, or thought women are good for raping, would you want them having your back in a firefight?
Of course not.
But, if we must, let’s narrow the focus to just presidential matters. As a soldier, I’d be far more concerned with any president who constantly used soldiers as props while cutting back on the VA and such. Concerned with any president who sent soldiers off to war over and over for multiple tours: even the National Guard despite, by definition, being by definition “national.” I’d be very, very concerned if I were in the National Guard and a president sent me away from, by definition of “national,” what I am supposed to be defending: my nation. I’d be more concerned with any president who insists they hunt for invisible WMD, while saying he’s not concerned about the leader of those who attacked us… who tolerates, even promotes, torture: defending something that’s a recruitment tool for those who are out to kill me, out to defeat and destroy my country. I’d be far more concerned with all those lower standards than any consensual BJs. A president can still do his job and have such ill-advised adventures. And, as a soldier, my opinon of any such misadventures should mean squat when comes to doing my duty.
Really, after over 13 years if you’d rather obsess about BJs rather than any of that whose side are you really on?
Certainly not the side of those whose job is to defend the nation.
And, though claiming so may be politically convenient: no way in hell do you believe in some rational “higher” standard.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved