A Memorial Day Question

Memorial Day is a day for remembrance and reflection.  This Memorial Day, I
have been remembering and reflecting upon a question that I never fully
answered when I was inside and that still confounds me even now when I have more time to ponder.  Is it appropriate for Americans to see the military as heroes and, if so, what role should political leaders play in that?

There are discernible differences between the parties on this topic, and
these differences have evolved over time.  At the risk of great
simplification just to spark reflection, since the Vietnam War era
Republicans have alternated between a "military as victim" and "military as
hero" narrative.  During the late Vietnam and early post-Vietnam era, the
military as victim narrative dominated in Republican circles.  Soldiers were
victims of bad (mainly Democratic) political leadership who made strategic
blunders and cost them victory.  Reagan harnessed the emotion that sprung
from that narrative but spun it around into a "military as hero" narrative
that fueled the Republican-led defense build-up and culminated in the Desert Storm victory that President Bush (41) claimed vanquished the Vietnam Syndrome.  However, by the mid-1990’s, Republicans were tending to view the military as a victim again, this time a victim of Democratic policies that had them promiscuously engaged in frivolous nation-building exercises around the world or of dubious social engineering policies, while dangerously depleting funds from basic readiness and training accounts.  Help was on the way, President Bush (43) promised, and since his election the "military as hero" narrative has dominated Republican discourse.  To be sure, grumbling within Republican ranks about the strain on the force caused by the simultaneous pursuit of the Afghan and Iraq wars along with Rumsfeld’s
transformation agenda, has shown up in occasional "military as victim"
storylines.  And those storylines may be growing within Republican ranks as
President Obama puts his personal stamp on national security policy.  But I
would say the dominant Republican narrative remains "military as hero."

For Democrats, or at least for an influential and prominent strand within
the Democratic party, the narrative has oscillated between "military as
perpetrator" and "military as victim" narratives.  The "military as
perpetrator" narrative was prominent in critiques about military abuses
during the Vietnam War, in critiques about military spending during the
Reagan build-up, and in critiques about military atavism on social policy
during the 1990s years; think "My Lai massacre," and "$600 toilet seats,"
and "Tailhook."   But Democrats have more recently given more prominent play to a "military as victim" narrative that culminated in the role that wounded vets and the families of slain soldiers played in the election cycles of 2004, 2006, and 2008.  Abuses during the Iraq war have led some to flirt
with a "military as perpetrator" narrative — as in Murtha’s comments about
the Haditha killings — but in the main, Democrats view the perpetrators to
be President Bush and his top civilian team and the military to be the
victims on whom the wrongs have been perpetrated.

These lines are blurry.  After all, the "Reagan defense build-up" actually
began under President Carter so arguably it was Democrats who began the push to revive the military as heroes.  And sometimes the "military as victim" narrative is spun into a "military as heroic victim," as when Democrats hail General Shinseki for challenging Rumsfeld on Iraq policy.  And Democrats have worked hard to purge the "military as perpetrator" narrative from their ranks because they recognize that it is electorally toxic; the deliberate cultivation of "military as victim" is due, I am sure, to political leaders recognizing that it offers Democrats a "sweet spot" of empathizing with a popular institution while maintaining a scorched earth critique of Republican national security policies.  It also goes without saying that the true picture of the military is complicated and probably an amalgam of all of these narratives (and more besides).

Yet, if I am right in broad terms about the ebb and flow of these narratives
and the role of the political parties in promoting them, my underlying
question remains unanswered — multiple questions, actually.  What is the
appropriate mix of narratives?  Does the remarkably high regard the public
holds for the military indicate that the public is duped by these
narratives, or that the public is able to see through them to some deeper
narrative?  Can we celebrate the "military as hero" narrative without giving
way to militarism?

For my part, I wish the Democratic party would feel more comfortable with
the "military as hero" narrative.  I wish they could more often celebrate a
military hero on his or her own terms — as someone who accomplished a very difficult and noble mission against a determined foe.  But I don’t think it would be healthy for that to be the only narrative available.  And I don’t
think it is healthy for Republicans to promote only the "military as hero"
narrative.  

War is hell, and the human costs of war are a great tragedy.  As a nation,
we must not forget that.  Like the slave who whispered, "remember you are
mortal" to the Roman military hero in the victor’s parade, these other
narratives are a useful reminder of some painful truths about the military.

So this Memorial Day, and every day, it is worth asking our political
leaders from both parties to see and present a more complete picture.  And
we, as engaged citizens, should reflect on the heroism, sacrifice, and
blunders that comprise our nation’s long military record.  We should thank
the military and their families for their service — celebrating the heroes,
caring for the victims, and holding accountable those who erred.