Friday, March 10, 2006
Peter Beinart at The New Republic explains: War College:
Politically, it's a no-brainer. The national Democratic Party grew alienated from the U.S. military at exactly the time liberal campuses began expelling rotc. A public call for its restoration could help undermine the anti-military stereotype that still plagues the party today...
...Today, ROTC's opponents are no longer politically radical. They're not antimilitary, they insist, they just oppose its "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays and lesbians. They're simply treating the military the same way they treat every other organization that discriminates.
But that's exactly the problem. The military isn't like every other organization: Its members risk their lives to defend the United States. When such an institution discriminates, you can--and should--try to reform it from within. That's what ROTC was designed for. But, when you treat it like a pariah--while still insisting that it protect you--you have broken the contract that binds a democratic military and a democratic people.
In his speech opposing ROTC, Brinkley compared making gays serve under "don't ask, don't tell" to making blacks who serve pass for white. But, of course, Columbia embraced rotc even when the U.S. military did discriminate against blacks. And, more important, blacks themselves enlisted in vast numbers. In so doing, they weren't endorsing racism; they were recognizing that, when a racist institution also defends your country, you have to embrace it and fight to change it at the same time.
Today, the Serviceman's Legal Defense Network--which represents gays and lesbians in the military--understands the same thing. Which is why it does not oppose rotc on campus, even as it struggles heroically against "don't ask, don't tell." It is Bollinger and Brinkley who, by shunning the military, have placed themselves in the oppositional, anti-liberal tradition of the New Left...
Say, that's kind of funny, isn't it? Colleges have funny priorities. Yale, for instance, won't allow ROTC on campus, but the Taliban is just fine.
So I guess that would mean that Gov. Pataki, the Chief Executive of New York, should jump into the forefront with Columbia? Maybe even the City of NY's Chief Executive Bloomberg? How about NY's patron St., Rudy Guliani - I am sure he will join Sen. Clinton - right? Maybe Rep. King? Anyone? It's easy to point out something that Sen. Clinton hasn't done (and I agree she should) but don't single her out just b/c she is a Dem. None of the other NY politicians have joined the fray yet either.
I think you're missing the point. Of course any of them could do it, but it would be a particularly smart and interesting move for a Democrat who wants to show their hawkish/patriotic bona fides to do so, especially a Democrat with Presidential ambitions and a lefty and military-hostile reputation like Hillary's. The others have probably done the math that it's not worth the headache, but there's a potential upside for her, even if it's a losing battle.
The irony, of course, is that "Don't ask, don't tell" is NOT a military policy, no matter how often the universities or the press say it is. The policy was proposed by Bill Clinton, passed by the Congress, and signed into law by Pres. Clinton. The military never reqested it, never endorsed it, and has no power to ignore it or overturn it. If people feel strongly enough about it, they can simply lobby Congress to pass a law reversing it. Demanding that the military repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is bad history, bad law, and worse policy, as it undermines a basic American principle called civilian control of the military.