High on that list is the Democrats' canon that soldiers are just dumb grunts or, in Kevin's words, cannon fodder

I really don't think you're interpreting his comment correctly -- when he talks about "cannon fodder", he's cynically suggesting that that's how the Army leadership views them, not expressing his own view.

There's certainly a subset of lefties that tends to see volunteer soldiers as naive dupes at best, bloodthirsty jingoists at worst, but even for them, the term "cannon fodder" would never be used un-ironically. And AFAICT Drum isn't a member of that subset in the first place.

Kevin is a smart guy whose blog is one of my must-reads, but every once in a while he can't help but remind me of the issues that ensure I could never be a Democrat. High on that list is the Democrats' canon that soldiers are just dumb grunts or, in Kevin's words, cannon fodder.

Two points here: first is that, yes, as you say, Kevin's remark contains a certain amount of snark, and deserves to be read accordingly. But second is that the "cannon fodder" remark can be - and, in my view, is - both true and not unrespectful of the military.

Laying all my cards out here, I'm a Democrat, but I'm also the son of a US Army captain (who, in turn, was also a liberal Democrat). So I don't need to be told that plenty of soldiers are my intellectual equals, but at the same time, I can't avoid the conclusion that military operations, especially the kind we're conducting in Iraq, are fundamentally manpower-intensive things that have an inevitable number of casualties assocaited with them.

So the bottom line is, if you're a solider in Iraq, at least part of your job is being under a not-insignificant statistical probability of getting killed or maimed - if you're not literally "cannon fodder", then you're certainly IED bait. And that's true regardless of the intelligence of the people involved, or honor and worthiness of the military as a profession, or the fact that the majority of people in Iraq today are there because they chose to be.

So while I respect the military very much, I see no reason to deny the fact that they're fighting over there so that (theoretically, at least) we don't get killed over here. And that's what I get when I read the words "cannon fodder".

he's cynically suggesting that that's how the Army leadership views them, not expressing his own view.

I fail to see this as a great deal better than my interpretation. Instead of dumping on soldiers as a group, Drum is instead suggesting that the generals who send these men into combat view them as expendable nobodies. While I have my problems with various generals, suggesting that they care so little for the soldiers under their command is utterly vile.

Chris,

There is a difference between us fighting over there to avoid fighting over here and a loaded term like 'cannon fodder.' Yes, soldiers in Iraq face the risk of death or injury, but we work incredibly hard to ensure they do not go over there as cannon fodder, but as highly-trained soldiers capable of dealing with the dangers of Iraq. They are not 'IED bait.' They are trained professionals doing an incredibly dangerous job.

Consider a parallel: police officers and firemen face a not-insignificant statistical probability of getting killed or maimed in the course of their work, albeit markedly lower than that faced by soldiers in Iraq. Would you categorize them as figurative 'cannon fodder' because some of them will inevitably die in the course of performing their duties?

I fail to see this as a great deal better than my interpretation....suggesting that they care so little for the soldiers under their command is utterly vile.

I guess my mileage varies a little here -- I see quite a bit of daylight between dismissing the rank and file as cannon fodder and obliquely suggesting that the leadership, as an undifferentiated mass, might be callous about the lives of individual soldiers. Don't some actual soldiers occasionally suspect the latter as well? Anyway, I'm sure Drum didn't mean to accuse any particular military leader of this.

But I shouldn't speak for him -- maybe he'll see your trackback and clarify. In any case, I can't argue with your general thesis -- to be a Democrat is to brush elbows with people who are inclined to be skeptical or cynical about the military as a whole.

There is a difference between us fighting over there to avoid fighting over here and a loaded term like 'cannon fodder.' Yes, soldiers in Iraq face the risk of death or injury, but we work incredibly hard to ensure they do not go over there as cannon fodder, but as highly-trained soldiers capable of dealing with the dangers of Iraq. They are not 'IED bait.' They are trained professionals doing an incredibly dangerous job.

Well, you're certainly making it clear that the term "cannon fodder" is loaded in different ways for you (and probably many other military folks as well) than it is for me - so it's a term I'll try to avoid using in the future. But at the same time I don't think it necessarily implies the "faceless nobodies, fit only for destruction" connotation you think it does. There are plenty of good, smart, decent people over in Iraq who are inevitably gonna get hurt and killed because they were at the wrong place at the wrong, time, regardless of their level of training. The fact that they are good men and women makes it all the more tragic, but I don't think it changes the fact that a significant percentage of these folks are gonna get fed to the war.

Consider a parallel: police officers and firemen face a not-insignificant statistical probability of getting killed or maimed in the course of their work, albeit markedly lower than that faced by soldiers in Iraq. Would you categorize them as figurative 'cannon fodder' because some of them will inevitably die in the course of performing their duties?

Were I looking at it from a manpower standpoint (which is, of course, the context Kevin Drum was originally speaking in)... yes, I would. It doesn't mean I think any less of the cops involved, but it does mean that, to some extent, keeping sufficient numbers of guys in the "thin blue line" is of paramount importance. Some of those guys are inevitably gonna die (hopefully) in lieu of a greater number of civilians. And perhaps where we differ is that I don't think such a realization undermines the honor and respect we should give to cops, firefighters, and soldiers - it merely coexists alongside it.

Also, wouldn't the most likely explanation for a lessened need for "cannon fodder" be that wee are winning?

That's probably an idea Kevin at all costs does not want to reinforce.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

[following Gary's invitation to come over]

this, i think, is a lousy reason not to be a Demcrat, because you're assuming your conclusion. A. Dems are anti-military. B. KD writes a post with multiple possible interpretations, one of which is anti-military. C. Dems are therefore anti-military.

Alternative (Democratic) interpretation: A. The news is full of stories and commentary on the military lowering its recruiting standards. B. The military is enforcing DADT much less. C. Gee, guys, thanks for including gays in your bottom-of-the-barrel list of people you're willing to invite in. [last sentence is sarcasm.]

or, more fairly, it's high time that the military stop enforcing DADT. It's a pity that it took a war so unpopular that the military is scraping for bodies (according to the press) to effect the change.

thus the use of the term "cannon fodder".

but i agree with the underlying theme of your post that too many liberal bloggers appear to have too much contempt for those who voluntarily serve in the US Armed Forces.

please be sure that I hold those who serve in the military in the highest regard. My anger and contempt flows to those who are in civilian positions.

Francis,

A valid point. Kevin's words were more confirmatory than informative for me, as I came to the table with the belief that the Democrats tend to be an anti-military party. This was a post written in anger, which is always unwise, because I consider the term 'cannon fodder' to be derogatory to the soldiers in my charge.

I've always considered the term 'cannon fodder' to mean that politicians (and some pundits) view the military with disdain, not the American public. And I certainly believe that to be true, especially when I see the military used by presidents who define goals loosely, plan poorly, overextend deployments and ultimately resort to the politically defensive position of 'staying the course' while there's lots of headscratching among the military brass about what that course actually is.

I saw it with LBJ, Nixon and this president, so I don't stick a party label on it.

Certainly, with an all volunteer force, it's not as easy to make the claim, though it's also true that the headiness of youth and nationalistic zeal provides a rich vein for recruiters to mine. But I think many commenters simply don't weigh the full implications of the cannon fodder term. They use it to knock politicians w/o full regard for the active choice of the volunteers.

Also, over time, as I've tried to assess the source of anti-military attitudes in our society, I'm not as convinced as you are that it's a Democrat thing.

In general terms, I'd say I see more women than men opposed to the military, and among the young are both the gung-ho military supporters and the gung-ho detractors. Maturity adds moderation from extremism, for the majority.

Within my own family, my paternal grandfather (WW1), three uncles (WW2), my father (Korea/Vietnam), a brother-in-law (Vietnam era) and a nephew (just discharged) have served. Five of the seven were/are Democrats, though I know my Dad occasionally voted for a Republican, at various levels of government. He was the only lifer in that group, with 28 years of service.

Like him, I don't view political parties as cohesive tribes one pledges loyalty to. The sole purpose of parties is - or should be - to get candidates elected. If the candidates lack the capacity to define themselves independent of the party first and foremost, before aligning themselves with the party their positions are closest to, they generally come across as nondescript or second-rate representatives, who drift with the winds of public opinion and vote as they're told by speakers, majority and minority leaders tell them to, on all but a handful of issues.

While there can be times and places for party line loyalty in voting because compromise is necessary for legislative work to proceed, I think too few in both parties remember their service is first to the country as a whole, second to their specific constituents, and the party, third. With one's own conscience and judgment an essential part of each.

I do think most representatives jump in with the best of intentions, but especially at the federal level, they find it hard to maintain under the weight of monied influences and the 'go along to get along' promise party leaders make as a quid pro quo.

As a voter, I find it frustrating, and consider non-voting to be as responsible a choice as any other if it's an active choice (as opposed to passive apathy).

I consider the two party system too easy for lobbyists to exploit, though no viable third party with a solid longterm view has yet emerged. Most consider taking some slender points to extremes with too narrow centers.

I think a lot could be accomplished if voters could choose 'none of the above' for every contested office. If that choice received a plurality, it'd force a second election ten weeks later, with the rejected candidates excluded from the second go-around.

But I've strayed too far from my overall points: 1) I think 'cannon fodder' is a term directed at politicians too eager to commit military forces while other good options remain, (though it may unwittingly insult miltary volunteers), and 2) overgeneralization of any group of people can be politically good strategy but prone to error as a factual matter. Most of the ire directed at liberals and conservatives is caused by attributing the characteristics of the most vocal to the entire group. The vast majority of people I know can't so easily be typecast that way.

I, too, thought that Kevin was using the term "cannonfodder", not to express his attitude, but to express the attitude of politicians that Kevin didn't respect.

So I think Andrew was reacting more to a stereotype in his head than to Kevin's actual words. But stereotypes usually have a little truth in them. I'm a liberal, indeed a classic vegetarian treehugging liberal. No one in my family is in the military. My dad was a WWII vet but he isn't active in any veterans organizations. My first husband was a draft resister and my current love is a Buddhist pacifist. So coming from this background I think I am in a good position to notice that there is an attitude held by some Democrats which Andrew might interpete as snobbish: people from my background often assume that others join the military for only economic reasons or because they don't know what else to do. The implication is that no one would choose the military as a career--that the military is not a good career choice. Well many people do join the military for economic reasons, but many people also choose it as a career and the assumption that college educated upperclass Democrats make that it isn't a good career path is sort of snobbish.
I came aware of my own feelings on this when I joined the Clark campaign. Many of my friends thought it was weird that I would support a general.
Of course thinking that no one would choose the miitary as a career unless they had to is not the same as viewing soldiers as cannonfodder. It fact the Democratic attitude that I am describing is a bit paternalistic since the assumption is that society ought to be managed so that people didn't have to join the military. But still it is an anti-military attitude and I can see how it would get up Andrew's nose.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: