Soldiers Over Lawmakers
Written by Sam on November 17th, 2007
PENSACOLA, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said Friday that a 20-year-old soldier serving in Iraq often has a better understanding of national security than a veteran lawmaker in Congress.
Thompson spoke to about 100 supporters in Florida, where recent polls show the actor-politician in single digits, trailing his top rivals Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and in a close race with John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Thompson met privately with about 15-20 family members of deployed soldiers and sailors from the town populated by military retirees and home to Pensacola Naval Air Station.
“It always is amazing to me that the average 20-year-old today serving in Iraq has a better understanding often times of our national security and what it takes than a 20-year veteran of Capitol Hill who is playing politics,” Thompson said.
Thompson’s assertion sounds like common sense to me. These 20 year olds are in the war zone 24/7 every single day they are deployed. They see firsthand the trials and tribulations of war, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other conflict we may see ourselves in. Their experiences lend them a lot a more credence in knowing what is right or wrong in the War on Terror than some stuffed shirts in Washington on either side of the war argument who twist and spin information in order to support their biased opinions in front of the television cameras. It’s good to see Fred recognizes this.
17
AM
WHOA. I thought all of you told me just a couple of weeks ago that service in the military has nothing to do with one’s opinion being worthwhile on a policy issue. This is how you justified arguing forcefully in favor of sending more poor kids out to die while you sat back in your recliners and marvelled at your own courage in the face of Democrat cowardice.
17
PM
There’s a difference between saying that a soldiers perspective is important when speaking to the families of soldiers, and recalling the a soldiers perspective is important when formulating policy. Thompson is playing to the crowd.
17
PM
Also, is Fred not a “stuffed shirt in Washington”, and is therefore admitting that he knows less about the war on terror than many recent high-school graduates? This is not a qualification I’d like in the next commander in chief.
I think that soldiers on the ground have an invaluable perspective that we can’t ignore, but I’d personally like someone with a masters degree in international relations making our foreign policy. Soldiers, for example, wouldn’t know if something exactly like what we are trying now had been tried in the past, and if that had worked. Soldiers for the most part don’t know the history of the region or many of the key players in the region today. Does that diminish their sacrifice or their courage? Of course not. But to say that it makes them masters of foreign policy is more than a little disingenuous.
17
PM
Dammit, Sam. You’ve placed me in the unfortunate position of having to agree with Publius. Unlike John Kerry or “Ken Doll” Romney, I’m not going to be a flip-flopper here. I stand by the argument I made a few weeks ago- military service is valorous, brave, and ought to be respected. But it does not qualify someone to make important foreign policy decisions.
I’m also not a big fan of stuffed-shirt finger-in-the-air Washington politicos making those decisions either, but that’s for another post.
17
PM
I think a realistic foreign policy would take into account both the opinions of the military and the opinions of those who received an education on such subjects. Often, talking to the average soldier on the streets of Baghdad will give you a good local perspective, but does it give you a good macro perspective? Not likely.
This is why foreign policy needs to be built with the input of military commanders, civilians educated in international relations/military history/etc…, arguably lawyers with expertise in constitutional and international law, and arguably political experts who will be able to sell your policy to the public. The Bush administration has lacked a balance of these elements to say the least.
17
PM
I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the grunts on the ground should be making all of the decisions. I am merely pointing out that the people on the ground have a lot better perspective than Harry Reid or Donald Rumsfeld on a wide array of military issues and should be listened to more.
There were several generals that disagreed with Bush’s strategy and instead of listening to them he got rid of them. General Patreaus gave his report to the Senate and the Democrats accused him of lying. Don’t people fighting in Iraq know more about the situation there than a Congressman or Senator who takes one trip over to show their face, or never goes at all?