An American Lion

I have never liked the idea of a President using our troops in uniform as props to sell something. I didn’t like it when Ronald Reagan did it, I didn’t like it when Bill Clinton did it, I didn’t like it when George W. Bush did it (and he did do it way too much for even my taste) and I sure as heck don’t like it when President Obama does it at West Point tomorrow to sell his surge into Afghanistan.

There’s nothing worse than a journalistic hack who simply excuses the hypocrisy and tries to play some sort of game with who has the moral authority to say or do whatever they want to do:

First, the good news: President Obama will not be wearing a flight suit when he addresses the cadets at West Point on Tuesday night. Nor will he wear a bomber jacket with the presidential seal on the chest, nor even, the White House promises, a windbreaker with the word ARMY in big letters.

“You can count on no military garb,” assures Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.

Mission Accomplished? Not entirely.

One of the common complaints of George W. Bush’s presidency was his tendency to politicize the military and turn troops into props. The man seemed to make more appearances before military audiences than Bob Hope did. But now Obama is antagonizing many in his party with an expected announcement that he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, and, to rub it in, he’s making the announcement at one of Bush’s favorite military locations: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point — the very birthplace, seven years ago, of the Bush Doctrine.

Obama’s fondness for audiences in uniform is not yet in the same category as his predecessor’s. Beyond the infamous “Top Gun” landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the Thanksgiving turkey he served to troops in Iraq, Bush routinely used military-themed backdrops for his speeches: fighter jets, camouflage nets, American flags, military bands and, best of all, thousands of troops applauding or shouting “Hoo-ah” at the right moments.

This is unnecessary snark, but Milbank deals in that sort of thing. He’s a snark merchant, a man who uses it without realizing he has no moral authority to do so. Apply it to Tiger Woods, someone’s gaffe, or public policy if you want. Don’t apply it to matters of life and death, war and the escalation of that war. Men and women with quite a bit more on the ball than Dana Milbank are going to be dying because of this President’s decisions—nothing to snark about there.

Our troops are not props for domestic political use. If the President wishes to talk to the troops, visit with them in the hospital, or attend their services and funerals, he should do so with a press blackout attached to the situation, one respected by the press and the political operatives alike. I would like to see this practice end. Their uniforms are camoflaged on purpose—not so that we should not see them, but, rather, so that, when we see them in uniform, we understand the context of why they have to wear that uniform. The American people are divorced enough as it is from the reality of the wars in which we are fighting. They dont’ need to be more divorced from reality when they happen to see the President talking to men and women in uniform. They don’t need to see an audience held hostage to a political message, and, really, that’s all these speeches are. They position the President with the American people by using the troops as a captive audience.

None of the men and women in uniform at those events are able to speak up. If anyone so much as tried what Congressman Joe Wilson said earlier this year, they would be up on charges and ridden out of the service on a rail. The President needs to speak to the American people—men and women who can, if they want, speak truth to power—not to troops who are required to follow the orders he, and the officers appointed under him, give to those troops.

I’m sorry, Mr. Milbank, but your snark is as ridiculous as you are. Smirk all you want, but you score no points on this President or the previous one. Mr. Bush, at least, put on the uniform, and the troops still love him, to some degree. That means nothing inside the beltway? Probably not. Mrs. Palin has a son who has gone into harms way. Do you? Or are you keeping your children free from having to do anything to serve their country by spreading your snark around for all to ignore?

I know, I know. Too personal. That’s so totally unfair to go there. Warmongers at your paper love to talk about what we should do, who we should invade, how many we should kill. Very few of your ilk have the stomach for it. Let an old man have his sad little opinions. Say something snarky at my expense—I can take it. I’ll take one for the team. I really don’t mind a bit.