Where are veterans’ issues?

| October 17, 2012

OK, I’ve been sitting here for a couple of hours listening to the media tell me what was important about the debate last night. No one has mentioned that veterans and national security have been noticeably absent from all of the debates so far this year. In a link sent to us by Chief Tango, the Daily Beast notices it, too.

Here’s why: 68 percent of Americans think the war in Afghanistan is going somewhat or very badly, and the same percentage thinks we should withdraw entirely or start drawing down troops now. Compound that with less than 1 percent of Americans serving in the active-duty military, so much of the nation feels no real stake in or connection to the war effort. That disconnect and distance helps explain how, at this time of collapsing support for the government, the press, and other institutions, three of four Americans say they’ve maintained their confidence in the military.

The only thing we’ve heard from this administration in regards to Afghanistan was in the vice-presidential debate from Joe Biden as he gave the Taliban his personal guarantee that no matter how well, or poorly, the war is going in Afghanistan, we’re out of there by 2014.

I did notice that last night President Obama asked the governor “How are you different from George Bush?” I think Romney missed an opportunity by not asking Obama the same question, since most of what Obama has done that could be put in the “successful” column was hold over policy from the Bush Administration – things like the hunt for bin Laden, keeping Guantanamo open, the military tribunals, and re-certifying the PATRIOT Act. The things Obama did that were to change Bush policies were failures and Obama could have listed them for Romney’s next campaign commercial.

Obama is most vulnerable on national security and the way he’s fought the Afghanistan War. Yeah, you can continue to beat Obama over the head with the Benghazi consulate thing, but it’s really just a symptom of how disingenuous this administration have been with Americans on national security.

The word I’m getting from folks in Afghanistan is that if this administration was forthcoming on how many attempted blue on green attacks there have been this year, Americans would be outraged. The attacks that have been reported resulted in deaths, but I’m told they’re only the tip of the iceberg compared to the number that resulted in wounds or were thwarted. By hiding these attempts from the public, the administration was able to call them “negligible” for the first eight months of this year. But the sheer volume of the attempts would have alerted us to the problem before it became a problem.

This administration has consistently been unable to call terrorist attacks terrorist attacks. From the jihadist who murdered a soldier at a recruiting station in Little Rock to Nidal Hasan’s attack on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Even the underwear bomber. This administration couldn’t admit that we were under attack in our own country by terrorists. So why is everyone so surprised that they couldn’t admit the truth about Benghazi?

And the green-on-blue attacks are a direct result of the Obama Administration’s failures in Afghanistan. They half-assed “surged” in 2009 contrary to the needs the commanders said they needed. The CIA and the generals correctly predicted that fully staffing the surge would not have a long term impact in Afghanistan and we’re seeing that prediction come to fruition now.

And while we’re complaining about Romney, I haven’t heard a word from that campaign in regards to Obama’s promise to the 2011 American Legion Convention that he wouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans while his Secretary of Defense was planning to do exactly that. Despite the fact that Congress told the DoD that they wouldn’t hike Tricare fees, DoD has hiked Tricare fees just in case.

This president is more vulnerable on veterans’ and national security issues than anything else, including the Obamacare bill and economy because it doesn’t take charts, graphs and wonkish blather to explain how poorly they’ve performed in regards to the issues. So why is the Romney campaign so averse to the discussion?

Category: 2012 election, Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan, Terror War

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PintoNag

I greatly fear that Romney hasn’t touched veterans issues because his administration (if he ends up with one) will do exactly the same thing that Obama’s has; namely, cut the DoD budget and hurt our veterans. His actions seem to point to the the belief that they’re political assets to be exploited, and nothing more.

Old Tanker

Noonan is Romney’s Defense Policy Advisor? He’s come a way since OPFOR…

TSO

Noonan is a good dude. I was actually emailing him this morning over an unrelated issue.

(Weinstein at Mother Jones is taking shots at him over Romney’s VMI Speech.)

Old Tanker

I used to read OPFOR pretty regularly but haven’t been very regular in a while, I’m sure Bullnav will chastise me properly!

Tman

CNN polls are saying that barack “won” the debate (rolls eyes).

How sad that some people think barack “won” the debate simply because he was more energized than last debate.

I think Romney’s shining moment of the debate was his reply to the “undecided” black guy who was concerned about how badly things were going in the last four years. Romney’s answer was to the point, clear, and inspired. Barack’s response was as muddled and generic as usual.

martinjmpr

I think a few outlets have mentioned this but it’s worth pointing out that this is the first presidential election since at least 1944 in which neither major party candidate has ever served in the military (I know FDR didn’t, for obvious reasons, but I don’t know about the republican candidates in ’32, ’36 and ’44 and I’m too lazy to google it.)

Since that time every election has featured at least one veteran and in every election up to 1992 it was a veteran who won (Ike, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I.)

What worries me is not the professionalism of our military (which will remain) but the military being pushed to the back burner of American political concerns, much like it is in places like England (where service in the military is not only not a benefit to a political candidate, it might actually be a detriment.) Obviousluy there are a lot of differences between England’s parliamentary democracy and our constitutional republic, but it’s definitely got me a bit concerned.

valerie

Guys, the whole cluster of issues surrounding national defense is being debated by proxy under the issue of “Libya.” Our four dead in Libya, 300 dead mexicans, and 2,000 plus dead in Afghanistan are all, in my view, part of the same pattern of lack of concern for the individual.

Yes, we know better.

Obama didn’t win that debate. I came away thinking that people who believe the Democratic talking points would remain unmoved. I was deeply surprised to see the focus group results.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/17/video-luntz-focus-group-unloads-on-obama-after-debate/

If that group is really representative of undecided voters in this country, this is huge.

Common Sense

I think Romney doesn’t address the military in the debates because he and Ryan are just as clueless as Obama and Biden. Neither served or come from families with a military tradition.

For example, Romney’s comments on supporting rebels in Syria are quite alarming.

Ryan showed superficial understanding during his debate, but I fear that it’s just one of many areas that take a back seat to the economy.

Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for VP instead of Allen West shows where his attention is.

NHSparky

@7–I don’t know about the republican candidates in ’32, ’36 and ’44 and I’m too lazy to google it.

1944–Dewey. Not a veteran.
1940–Wilkie. Army, WWI.
1936–Landon. Army, WWI.
1932–Hoover. Not a veteran.