The Next President: Comparison of Military Priorities

SFA Commo Sgt comment: This article, from Military Times was originally titled "The next president's military: Here's a comparison of the candidates' priorities". There seems to be a recent phenomenon whereas retired Military Generals have become more public and outspoken in their political commentary, supporting one candidate or another. Most recently USA retired LTG Michael Flynn came out in support of Donald Trump whereas USMC retired General John Allen came out in support Hillary Clinton. Given Mrs. Clinton's support for the lifting of Iranian sanctions, her in-actions before/during Benghazi, and her security violations with classified material it is strange times when military Generals can support this. Watch for more General Officers to come out in support of one candidate or the other, or publically addresing a specific policy stance such as in the instance of Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McCrystal publically supporting enhanced gun control. In fact, the Special Forces Association National Headquarters issued a membership resolution, at the annual convention in July 2016, addressing the SFA stance against Petraeus and McCrystal stating "the U.S. Constitution and all of its amendments, realizing that only the existence of the Second Amendment guarantees the freedom of the American people and that the Bill of Rights was written to delineate and restrict the power of government and not to restrict the powers and rights of the people or states.”

Troops and veterans voting in the presidential election this fall won’t just be picking their choice for commander in chief, they’ll also be choosing which political party sets the agenda on military issues for the next four years.

Democratic and Republican leaders finalized their party platforms at their respective conventions in July, outlining a broad set of goals for handling national defense, Veterans Affairs reform and maintaining service members' morale. Both parties call for a stronger military. Both promise to defeat terrorism abroad and target Islamic State fighters in the Middle East. Both pledge to overhaul veterans’ healthcare programs.

But like the party’s presidential picks, the two plans also offer stark contrasts. Republicans promise to take a more aggressive stance against hostile threats abroad. Democrats advocate the importance of diplomacy and alliances as the smartest path to security. Neither plan agrees on what VA reform means.

For military personnel and their families, those stances could have implications beyond just the next president’s time in the White House. Here are some of the key distinctions between the two parties' platforms.

Military pay, benefits

Democrats want to expand troops’ benefits, promising to push “more educational benefits and job training” for troops and veterans. Party leaders also vowed to ensure reservists and National Guard personnel are “treated fairly” when it comes to benefits, and to improve services to help them transition to civilian careers.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has reinforced that idea in recent months on the campaign trail, and speakers at the party convention in Philadelphia reiterated those general promises.

But the Republican platform on military benefits is significantly more detailed. It supports a full military pay raise equal to the private sector's average annual rise. It also decries Pentagon cuts to other benefits, proposals that many conservative lawmakers have reluctantly approved in recent years.

“Military families must be assured of the pay, healthcare, housing, education, and overall support they have earned,” the Republican platform says. “In recent years, they have been carrying the burden of budgetary restraint more than any other Americans through cuts in their pay, health benefits, and retirement plans. We cannot expect that level of patriotic commitment to continue among young people who have experienced the way their families have been treated.”

Neither party’s plan fully outlines how to pay for any benefits expansion. Both sides blame ongoing budget caps, approved by Congress in 2011, for the financial squeeze being put on service members and their families. Yet neither party has identified a compromise that would replace those spending limits.

Military size, strength

Republicans promise in their platform to “reverse America’s military decline,” a situation they blame on too little funding and too few troops. Their plan calls for adding military personnel, “increasing investments in training and maintenance,” and rebuilding military facilities worldwide.

“Successive years of cuts to our defense budget have put an undue strain on our men and women in uniform,” the platform states. “This is especially harmful at a time when we are asking our military to do more in an increasingly dangerous world.”

That message has been underscored repeatedly by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. In his convention acceptance speech on July 21, he vowed to "completely rebuild our depleted military" and make foreign allies "pay their fair share" of the cost of stationing U.S. troops and equipment overseas.

The Democratic platform calls for “a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic challenges we face.” The document makes no mention of force size, but it does promise to address the readiness shortfalls that Republicans highlight.

“We must prioritize military readiness by making sure our active, reserve, and National Guard components remain the best trained and equipped in the world,” it states. “We will seek a more agile and flexible force, and rid the military of outdated Cold War-era systems.”

Clinton underscored her message of relying on both diplomacy and military might in her nomination acceptance speech Thursday night.

"America's strength doesn't come from lashing out," she said. "Strength relies on smarts, judgment, cool resolve, and the precise and strategic application of power..."

"Keeping our nation safe and honoring the people who do it will be my highest priority."

The Democratic plans also include promises to end waste in the defense budget, detailing a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors in Pentagon operations.

Social issues

The Democratic platform praises repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which prohibited gay troops from publicly revealing their sexual orientation, and lauds efforts to open all combat roles to women. It promises to build on those ideas, looking to ensure that minority groups within the military are protected while still being held to high standards for service.

Republicans call this social experimentation.

“We believe that our nation is most secure when the president and the administration prioritize readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda,” the GOP document states.

That includes suggestions for requiring women to register with Selective Service — a proposal currently circulating on Capitol Hill — as well as creating rules governing the discussion of religion in the ranks and unspecified “intra-military special interest demonstrations.”

Republicans want “an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current administration’s ideology-based personnel policies” to determine if any such personnel changes need to be rolled back.

Democrats reject that stance entirely in their platform.

“Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities are honored for their service to our country,” their document states. “Democrats welcome and honor all Americans who want to serve and will continue to fight for their equal rights and recognition.”

Veterans healthcare

The Republican platform promises to massively expand health care options outside VA as a way to alleviate wait times and get all veterans the best care possible.

The Democratic platform calls that idea a disaster.

“We reject attempts by Republicans to sell out the needs of veterans by privatizing the VA,” their plan states. “We believe that the VA must be fully resourced so that every veteran gets the care that he or she has earned and deserves, including those suffering from sexual assault, mental illness and other injuries or ailments.”

Most of Clinton’s campaign focus on veterans in recent months has centered on the issue of voucherizing or privatizing VA, an idea she has also promised to vigorously oppose.

Instead, both her staff and the Democratic platform have pledge to put in place more resources to make VA services operate better, rather than moving those appointments outside the system.

But the Republican platform — and Trump — see that approach as naive and too reserved.

“We cannot allow an unresponsive bureaucracy to blunt our national commitment” to veterans, the party’s platform states. “The VA must strengthen and improve its efforts through partnerships with private enterprises, veteran service organizations, technology and innovation.

“That includes allowing veterans to choose to access care in the community and not just in VA facilities, because the best care in the world is not effective if it is not accessible.”

In his convention speech, Trump promised to make every federal department leader, including the next VA secretary, "provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days." He has repeatedly said eliminating fraud and abuse will help fund numerous reforms at the agency.

Republicans in the planning document also outline plans to bolster support for veterans’ cemeteries nationwide and improve transition support for troops leaving the ranks.

Any comments by the SFA Commo Sgt (highlighted in yellow font at the beginning of this post) who serves as the SFA Chapter IX website administrator and moderator, are his comments alone, and are not necessary shared by the general Chapter memberership nor cordoned by the Chapter Executive Board.

Admiral William McRaven and the Greatest of Special Ops: Saving America

In an essay in The Wall Street Journal recently, Thomas C. Reed proposed that, to “stiffen the collective spines of our allies in this time of troubles,” American conservatives might think of advancing a military leader for president.

“It’s Eisenhower Time for Republicans” read the headline of Mr. Reed’s essay, in which the former U.S. Air Force secretary described the desperation of the anyone-but-Trump element in the GOP this way: “Republicans, contemplating an avalanche of Donald-detonated losses in the fall, dream of a savior emerging from the Cleveland convention.”

These murmurings and hopes might have begun with a small group of conservatives who have become enchanted by the idea of James Mattis, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general who last served as commander of U.S. Central Command, running for president. He is known as the “warrior monk” and is said to have carried with him during deployments a copy of Meditations, a classic tome of stoicism written by Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Mr. Mattis has routinely batted down the idea of running for the White House, and said last week he believes that calls for him to do so are symptomatic of a nation that has lost its way. “No, I haven’t given any thought to it,” Mr. Mattis remarked during an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s like America’s lost confidence and lost faith and rational thought.”

Stanley McChrystal, the retired U.S. Army general who was head of the Special Operations Command and later sacked as U.S. commander in Afghanistan for issuing critical comments about Vice President Biden, has also been mentioned. But Mr. McChrystal’s desire to reinstate the draft would not get him much support among Millennials.

Mr. Reed writes that his first choice would be retired U.S. Navy Adm. William McRaven, former head of the U.S. Special Operations Command and architect of the Navy SEAL raid that took down Osama bin Laden. He’d be my first choice as well. Talk of a McRaven candidacy has been fueled in part by the rumor, as the The Tampa Tribune reported in June 2014, that Mr. McRaven retired from the Navy and took a position as chancellor of the University of Texas system to prepare for a run as vice president alongside presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. It’s a career move, Mr. Reed pointed out, that parallels that of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as president of Columbia University between his celebrated military career and debut as a presidential candidate. Rumors about Mr. McRaven’s future are many. “I’ve heard all the rumors,” Vice Admiral Joe McGuire, a close friend of Mr. McRaven’s for almost 40 years, told The Tampa Tribune. The newspaper noted those rumors range “from being named the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to running for office as either governor of Texas or even Hillary Clinton’s veep.”

There was a time when I never could have imagined voting for Ms. Clinton, but I began to move tentatively toward the water’s edge after reading former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War. To my surprise, he described Ms. Clinton walking out of former President Clinton’s shadow, and showing that she was an exemplary colleague. “She was a terrific colleague and a highly valued one—not least for her sense of humor,” he wrote.

Mr. McRaven has also lauded Ms. Clinton and had high praise for President Obama’s national security team, including those in place at the time of the Bin Laden raid, as well as Mr. Gates, according to a report in POLITICO. But just suppose for a second—suppose Ms. Clinton enters the general election campaign in the fall with a different Bill in tow: Bill McRaven, a national hero unlike any other, admired by young minds after the greatest commencement speech ever at UT and a military hero of the highest caliber? His presence on the ticket would neutralize many of the unfavorable perceptions surrounding the former first lady and Secretary of State.

Yet the celebrated warrior has said it’s a no-go. “I am not running with Hillary,” Mr. McRaven said in response to the rumors back in 2014, when he was signing on at UT, according to The Daily Beast. But here it is 2016 and almost May at that, just months before the conventions, and the suggestion of Mr. McRaven for highest office advances tenaciously, here and elsewhere. I think he’d make a great president or a great VP for Ms. Clinton, much like retired general David Petraeus, a Republican and former Central Intelligence Agency director, would make a great choice for VP for any Republican who rises above the mayhem this summer in Cleveland—or a great choice for president if the party splits in two at the convention. Mr. Petraeus was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine for sharing classified information with his biographer. But if Ms. Clinton is to be let off the hook for her security breaches, which were far worse than Mr. Petraeus’—and she will be—then Mr. Petraeus is good to go as well.

The idea of a military man or woman running for VP or for president is a good idea at this period of American history. It would emphasize that one of the primary purposes of a president is to be commander of troops in times of war or threats to national security. And it might be observed that historical cycles that end in chaos are generally followed by ones of strength, with a military officer leading the new beginning. America ascended under military-political leaders after three cycles of national tumult: the Revolution/Washington, the Civil War/Lincoln/Johnson/Grant, WWII/Truman/Eisenhower. We are in our own cycle of chaos, and this is the year of maximum chaos. This summer is sure to bring it to a head. But this summer will also be the time when the “savior” of people’s dreams emerges. Or not.