I mean, ideally yes, the military is there for the people, it is separate and impartial and only used to serve its basic function, i.e. to ensure the (inter)national security of the nation state and perhaps advance its interest through military means, which can nonetheless be topics of political contention.
But throughout time militaries everywhere have very often been used to prop up leadership in both dictatorships and democracies, to give an air of legitimacy, and to be part of leaders' photo opportunities and outward facing identity. Due to its role in the advent of nationalism it is almost everywhere an institution that's considered core to national identity, and internally it overflows with symbolisms to prove that point. Externally many people esp. in more militarised societies identify strongly with their militaries, also politically, moreso political conservatives in an age of resurgent nationalism.
It being the case that the United States is one of the most militarised nations on the planet I find it funny how Jay claims the military has always been in the background doing its job and that only now parties are trying to claim it. Defence, militarism and warfare have been incredibly important to American politics and election campaigning since at least the 1950s. The 'military vote' is lobbied for relentlessly and especially on the republican end of the spectrum politicians have to exhibit this 'I, strong american leader, will smash our enemies' machismo to appeal to that base and the public at large. A veteran status and war record is a great way to gain public veneration and attention, and there's been generations of politicians who thank their careers to it. The latest example being this Dan Crenshaw individual - I mean he even looks like a goddamn command & conquer caricature.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-06-18 07:05:10)
