Marshall Would Have Been Proud--by Foresman

Mother Jones is not a magazine known for highlighting the good works of institutions such as VMI. More often than such institutions would be in Mother Jones "progressive/liberal/populists" crosshairs.  That is not the case in a recent article regarding the Romney speech at VMI.  As COL Lang has suggested in earlier post VMI would be a good host but would do nothing to give an appearance of support for a particular presidential candidate.

I have no doubt that the VMI graduate who organized the appearance, believed that it was right and proper.  I know him, he is a fine young man, but like many of us in our youth, he allowed his exhubrance to get in the way of common sense. 

There is a good reason for the military to remain impartial--regardless of who is elected, that person will be the Commander in Chief as specfied by the Constitution of the United States.  The military's alligence is to the Constitution, not a particular political candidate.  Unfortunately this message and responsibility is often lost on some who serve in the military; or some who use their retired rank to indicate support for a particular candidate.  Neutrality is the best course; to be partisan will ultimately erode the special trust and bond between those serving in uniform and the American public.  Foresman

Comments

[turcopolier]

All

As a member of the class of 1962 I have only one quibble with this post. VMI is not "the military." It is a state college, founded in 1839, that has always had a military format. That format is thought to contribute to the formation of character marked by self discipline and an inclination to public service. Over the years VMI's impact on the learned professions has been greater than on the professional military. Nevertheless, the idea of prostituting VMI to the partisan ambitions of one party or another should be repulsive to every child of the Institute. pl

[marcus]

I could be called a progressive/liberal. A response/counterbalance to what is the more successful right-wing radical elements in this country. The Constitution has been bent, if not shredded, in pursuit of these radical plans--specifically the Neo-Con agenda.

This is why I am here. There are more like-minded contributors here than offered elsewhere. I'll give up a liberal Big-Bird pursuit any day than help soil the Spirit of the Constitution.

[Mj]

On Mittens’ absence from Vietnam] “He was serving his mission, and my five sons have also served missions. None served in the military, but I do have one son that feels that he’s giving back to his country in a significant way where he is now a doctor and he is taking care of veterans.”

“So, you know, we find different ways of serving,” she added. “And my husband and my five boys did serve missions, did not serve in the military.”

The candidate’s wife explained that Mormon missions were like military service in that “you’re going outside of yourself, you’re working and you’re helping others. And it changes you.”

[Al Spafford]

Here are the retired military officers waving the flag for Romney:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/18/romneys_parade_of_flag_endorsers

[Tyler]

The neocons were originally liberals who thought that the Left was not doing enough for Israel. So they become war hawks but continued to push for leftist goals on a global scale, generally via force majeur.

I certainly don't claim the 'neocons' when I talk of conservatism.

[The Moar You Know]

Risky. I'm sure most of the retirees on that list are working for a contractor in one capacity or another. What if your guy doesn't win? A vindictive victor (I'm not seeing Obama as that, but we've had a couple of other presidents in my lifetime that would do this in a heartbeat) would go through that list and kill contracts going to the endorser's company, particularly if they have the misfortune of being a small contractor. Bad strategy regardless of your party of choice.

[Charles I]

What I've really come to learn about and respect from the vets here is how you well informed, experienced, sensible, sometimes kinetically inclined types, many with much sounder apprehension and judgement than your government, some with a grudge or two, nonetheless manifest as faithful, or say, adherent, to the Constitution and the civilian chain of command in face of any inanity from it.

That makes you true professionals of quite a noble stripe, dutifully honourable the way no politician can seem to be.

My how you've turned my head over the years. Cheers

[stanleyhenning]

'm another VMI 62 graduate and the Romney visit there bothers me. I've always believed that not only military personnel, but even so-called political personnel should be thinking first for the overall good of the nation, not shallow views that lack depth of understanding of the issues that face us. Thus, I believe there is no room for "Yes men" and the Confucian saying should apply: "When there are civil matters military maters must also be considered and when there are military matters civil matters must must also be considered". Survival of the nation depends on clear, not ideologically blurred decisions.

[Mj]

That tells me a great deal.

[Norbert M Salamon]

Off topic in a way:

interesting analysis of the present strategy of the USA [political and military]:

The Risks of ignoring strategic insolvency
by Micheal J Mazarr

Enjoy

[Mark Gold]

She just doesn't know when to stop. This is getting up there with most offensive comment from the Romney's of the campaign. How the hell is serving on a religious mission like Romney's trying to recruit new followers in FRANCE have anything to do with serving your country?

How can those retired officers still support this?

[Ben]

Mitt Romney claims the 'neocons'-- hires them, lets them do his thinking and talking about foreign policy for him, etc. For better or worse, he's the standard bearer of the Republican party right now.