Professor Plum #4

Ok, genocide is not cool. Everyone's said that and I don't want to labelled the "pro-genocide" dude, so I wanted to get that out of the way. Now, I want to address something that hasn't already been discussed here. Namely, the accuracy of this quote.

Now, I dig Aaron Sorkin as much as the next dweebo politico in training, but I think he's missing something here.

The Republican Military.

"Republicans want a huge army and don't want to send it anywhere." Seems like it makes sense but it is closer to falsehood than mere hyperbole. Republicans don't want a massive army. In fact, Rumsfeld and others in the Neo-Conservative, Chicago school of Foreign Policy for Jerks would rather scale down the size of our traditional armed forces and divert the funds elsewhere. If you look to John Arquilla's "Net War" model, the key to battlefield success is a nimble, technologically adept army. (link). If you want proof that the US Military is buying this line of argumentation, Lawrence Korb's article on military restructuring in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs (link) explains how the DOD is pursuing this goal while dealing with the ramifications in the political process. Rumsfeld himself opined on the subject in a rather comprehensive article published in the May/June issue of 2002 (link).

When it comes to the use of force, Sorkin again misstates the facts. Though this statement came prior to the acceptance of the neo-con doctrine of intervention and/or preemption, he has been wrong for a lot longer than that. To cite an author that you debate geeks ought to recognize, Walter Russell Mead writes that in Special Providence (link) American foreign policy is motivated by four ideological schools:

Wilsonians - moral,idealist,interventionists
Jeffersonians - Civil liberty loving folks who don't like to impose our vision on others
Jacksonians - defend the homeland at all costs
Hamiltonians - money, money, money.

Trying to pair these schools to parties would be futile and ultimately incorrect, but one can see in these patterns of thought analogies to the current arguments about foreign policy. Throughout American history, conservatives in the US has used military force to benefit economic interests. This desire, though not exclusively Republican, seems to fit the type of American conservatism that Sorkin is referring to. Similarly, the Jacksonian impulse that drove the US into the World Wars is accepted by the GOP as well. Even the Wilsonian desire to "do good" has become a conservative mantra, especially in the Cold War.

So, let us revise our statements about the GOP:
"Republicans want a fully funded, functioning military that they can send where it will help out their pocketbooks/moral convictions"

Even if the moral convictions are capitalism and democracy… that could be used to establish capitalism :P

Next up is the Democrats, but since I have work early tomorrow, I can't really write now. But I promise a good post - you'll get to hear the real story about Democrats and the military... espcecially since work tomorrow involves reading up on Democratic legislation in House Armed Services and base closures. At the very least, my last one was cool. In a geeky, lame-o way, but still cool.