Military Opinions, Politics Meet Again in Syria
There are regulatory restrictions on what members of the US military are allowed to say and do when it comes to politics. With that in mind, there have been interesting displays from people in the US military (or claiming to be) over the proposed strikes on Syria.
For example, who would have thought a Soldier would publicly say this [emphasis added]:
“As a soldier, I understand that before any military action, our nation must have a clear tactical objective, a realistic strategy, the necessary resources to execute that strategy — including the support of the American people — and an exit plan. The proposed military action against Syria fails to meet any of these criteria.”
That was Hawaii Democrat and US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who is also an Army officer, making a statement “as a soldier” on the efficacy of her Commander-in-Chief’s military plans. (Gabbard’s Hinduism was a topic during her election, and she deflected it with her military service.)
Similarly, a spate of photos was posted to the internet with (apparently) uniformed servicemembers expressing their displeasure with plans to attack Syria.
This led at least one internet article to say the “US Military Does Not Want” to fight in Syria.
In a related event, the Military Times tried to raise the issue of military/politics referencing an official Marine Corps video that borrowed heavily from a speech by Ronald Reagan in 1964:
This is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face,” Reagan’s voice intones, over the image of ships cutting through the ocean. “That their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.”