July 30, 2007 - Three years ago, 60 percent of military voters polled by the Military Times identified themselves as Republican. Today, that number has dropped to 46 percent. The reason for this change is obvious: Iraq has gone from bad to worse. Afghanistan, too, is in trouble.

Many Democrats hope this disaffection with the GOP will translate into new votes. But members of the military have their own set of political interests, many of which don't overlap with those of non-military voters.

What, then, can Democrats do to win over voters in the armed forces? This is the question addressed by military veterans of various ranks and political persuasions in the following six essays.

–

In 2003, I spent three months at a state-of-the-art Army training complex that sought to replicate the intensity and claustrophobia of a nasty urban skirmish.

One day, as my unit advanced upon our objective, I felt the hard splat of a paintball against my leg. I had never actually been fired at before, and the shock stopped me. I couldn't make a decision, and the advance came to a temporary and frantic halt. With paintballs pouring down on us, we had become stuck in a soldier's worst nightmare: the kill zone.

It was good that I learned my lesson while in training and not later, when I was a paratrooper in Afghanistan. Indeed, this lesson – whatever you do, don't just stand there; do something – is central to the military mentality.

It also explains why so many servicemen and women voted for George Bush in 2004 and why I, a lifelong Democrat, briefly considered doing the same. The president, for all his flaws, appeared to understand the dangers of the kill zone intuitively. John Kerry, on the other hand, seemed like a man afraid to lead.

Kerry, of course, wasn't the first Democrat to suffer from the perception of being too eggheaded, too political, too weak. And yet, today, Mr. Bush's failures afford the Democrats a unique opportunity to dispel such caricatures and make inroads among those in uniform. A Democrat can tap into this vote simply by displaying clear leadership on issues of war and peace.

Iraq remains the critical issue facing the country, and more and more troops have come to believe that victory is impossible. They also know that the war is hollowing the Army out. Since Republican policies can be directly linked to the weakening of the Army, Democrats can credibly claim that the GOP is endangering our national security.

In November 2004, most of my colleagues voted to re-elect George Bush in spite of the fact that he had sent them to fight a poorly planned war being waged for ever-shifting rationales. They overlooked these flaws because his firmness inspired their confidence. If Democrats come out with equal firmness for withdrawal, they may find themselves picking up some unexpected new military votes. The men and women of the military fear, above all else, someone who will abandon them to the kill zone. They want someone who will lead them through it.

Ross Cohen is a former paratrooper and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He is currently completing his master's degree in public affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.

–

In 2008, the largest policy issue casting a shadow over my vote will be Iraq. I am a moderate Republican and an Army veteran who served in Iraq, and my experience dramatically changed my views. I was against the invasion initially, because I felt alarmed at the hostility from the international community and ashamed at the idea that we were forcing a war on a smaller, weaker country.
Later, my time in Iraq changed my opinion into one of wholehearted support for the war. That's because I admitted to myself that I believe in three very important ideas:

The first is simply dumb patriotism. If we are at war, then I want to win. As a person who has already invested a lot of time, sweat and blood into this venture, I naturally want to see it become a success.

Second, I see the invasion as having great potential to change the entire region for the better. The people we are fighting must be taught what civil rights are, regardless of how old their civilization may be. If we don't do it, no one else will. Satisfying our strategic interests as a nation requires that we fix something that would otherwise continue to be a threat.

Last, I have a problem with al-Qaeda. We might have been diverted from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but that doesn't mean we aren't also fighting al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

I cannot give my vote to anyone who would advocate withdrawal in the face of our sworn enemies. Unfortunately, that's what leading Democrats are doing, and why they're unlikely to get my support. Whoever comes forward and owns the "withdrawal vote" in 2008 can be sure to lose mine. The Democrat who can gain my vote will be the one who comes forward with a plan to win.

Garth Stewart is a sophomore at Columbia University. He served in Iraq as a mortar gunner in the 3rd Infantry Division during the invasion in 2003.

–

In 2000, when I was a newly commissioned second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, I voted for my fellow Tennessean Al Gore for president. The morning after Election Day, a group of us were gathered for the morning's formation, and one of the guys from Texas was kidding me about my vote.
At that moment a captain – one of the instructors – walked by and took it upon himself to explain how eight years of Clinton/Gore had "broken" the U.S. Army and that my vote against George W. Bush was naive and reckless.

I wonder, looking back, where that officer is now and what he thinks of his vote. What is clear, more than six years after the first election of Mr. Bush, is that the Army was not broken in the 1990s but certainly is now.

Its destruction has stemmed from a failure of the Bush administration – its greatest failure: the inability to articulate or even understand what kind of war we're fighting. As any student of military theory can tell you, if you fail to understand the nature of the war you're fighting, you're doomed before the first shot is fired.

When Republicans think of role models to follow for getting tough on defense, they inevitably think of Ronald Reagan. Democrats think of John F. Kennedy.

Mr. Reagan "won" the Cold War by outspending his competitor – on weapons systems, stealth bombers and nuclear submarines. Mr. Kennedy, by contrast, invested in weapons that are effective against insurgencies and guerrillas, supporting the Army Special Forces and fathering the Navy's SEAL teams. This provides an opportunity to Democratic candidates. For once, they can argue, it's the Republicans who don't understand modern war. We get it, they can say. They don't.

Hillary Clinton has worked admirably hard over the past six years to burnish her defense credentials. One gets the feeling that many generals would be happy enough to trade this disastrous presidency for a second Clinton administration. Ironically, though, a young and innovative candidate like Barack Obama may be as well positioned as anyone else to articulate this new kind of conflict.

I'll be paying attention to the statements that come from the Democratic candidates. Because if they really get it, if they properly articulate the nature of the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, then a Democrat will earn my vote in 2008.

Andrew Exum is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and the American University of Beirut. He led a platoon of light infantry in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks and subsequently led a platoon of Army Rangers as a part of special operations task forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

–

I happen to be a Democrat, but the perception of my party's weakness on matters of defense is pervasive both inside the military and out. American liberalism fares even worse. Someone once defined a liberal as the person who leaves the room when a fight breaks out.
I suppose this is still a lingering consequence of the hangover from the Vietnam War, when cold war liberals brought us to the jungles of Southeast Asia. After that, Democrats abdicated national security to the Republican Party.

You wonder why the military votes overwhelmingly for the GOP? I'd suggest that for years they had little choice: the Democratic Party gave up and left the room, and didn't even pretend to want the votes.

Nevertheless, with even a Pyrrhic victory in Iraq looking ever more remote and Afghanistan still a mess, the myth of Republican strategic mastery may finally have been shattered. When the legions return home and the extent of the mendacity that led to this Iraqi adventure sinks in, we might witness a sea change in American politics. My guess is that many will be willing to shift their party allegiance.

Such political realignment won't come from having armies of paid consultants coaching their candidates on how to project strength. Instead, Democrats would be better off simply showing that they've come to terms with an obvious truth: Defense is the primary function of government. Progress and prosperity can come only after a state of physical security is attained. Just ask the citizens of Iraq. Democrats know this, but they must show they know this.

Democratic leaders who demonstrate a proper understanding of national defense and who can tell it straight should be able to win votes from members of the military. If they could call on sacrifices from the civilian population, their prospects might be even better. Military personnel and their families can no longer carry the burden alone.

Clint Douglas, former staff sergeant, 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne), served in Afghanistan in 2003. He is the author of "Lunch with Pirates" in Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families.

–

Democrats seem to have developed an attachment to generals. In 2004, when John Kerry wanted to project commitment to a strong defense, he surrounded himself with high-ranking retired military officers. Just recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Web site carried statements from five generals endorsing the Iraq Accountability Act, which calls for drawing down the troops.
Well, maybe that helps get us out of Iraq. But if it's military votes you want, that's not the way to do it. That's because most troops don't like generals.

The gist of the complaints is consistent: that the military's senior leadership is out of touch with the troops, more concerned with their political safety or financial future than with the sacrifice of leadership. That's rarely been as clear as it is now, when generals have remained largely silent as military training and readiness – especially in the Reserves and the National Guard – have been steadily decimated by an uncertain, fundamentally non-military mission in Iraq.

There's no escaping the role played by top military brass in getting us to this point. Nor can the brass avoid blame for understating the catastrophic implications of White House decisions for military readiness. Even if civilian politicians didn't know how to use their defense resources judiciously, you'd think that generals and admirals would have pointed out the serious disconnect between civilian visions and genuine military capabilities.

Over the last decade, Gen-X and Gen-Y soldiers and leaders have become disillusioned, looking up at a military hierarchy that seems more Office Space than Band of Brothers. With the military falling apart from the inside out, the last thing we need is undeserved praise heaped on the military senior leadership behind the status quo. Democrats should understand this.

For any Democratic candidate genuinely interested in making inroads with the military, learning about the perspectives of enlisted soldiers and lower-ranking officers – not admirals and generals – will be essential. At the very least, the candidate should begin to grasp the extent of the military's problems today. And anyone who does that – and who can offer some hope of re-energizing the spirit of American service that the military represents – wins.

Captain Melissa Tryon, a Rhodes Scholar and graduate of West Point, is a veteran of the initial ground invasion of Iraq, in which she served in the 101st Airborne Division. She is currently an associate with the Truman National Security Project. The views expressed are hers alone and do not represent the Department of Defense.

–

The American political system doesn't always leave much room for people who'd rather vote for policies than for parties. Next November, however, I'll likely side with the candidate who best articulates a sensible international agenda. There are five items on my foreign policy wish list, shaped both by pride at having served alongside our nation's flag in Afghanistan and Iraq and by the reality of having buried too many comrades beneath it.
First, we must restore the American ideal in the world. Coercion is an inescapable part of international politics, but force has never been America's most effective weapon. We must lead, and restore the moral authority that has been such a great source of strength in American history.

Second, I'll vote for someone who makes explicit the three-way relationship between energy, the environment and national security. We can either take the lead to shape our own future, or surely be shaped by it.

Third, there's only one threat that could change life as we know it an hour from now: nuclear weapons. In the words of Harvard professor Graham Allison, nuclear terrorism is the ultimate preventable catastrophe. Without loose weapons and fissile material, there can be no nuclear terrorism. So let's get our act together and prevent it.

Fourth, Iraq. Our ground forces are stretched nearly to the breaking point, and conventional U.S. troops will inevitably need to be drawn down in Iraq before a stable society blooms. But we must keep sufficient forces in the region to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven and to prevent genocide in Iraq. Total withdrawal is irresponsible, and so is talk of deadlines.

Finally, in restoring the American ideal and implementing these tangible policies, we need good people to serve in government. Our next president should call on all Americans, not only on political loyalists, to do so.

We are at war, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. What we need from a Democrat at such a time is exactly what we need from a Republican: wise, measured, and inspiring leadership. Part of that involves appealing to our idealism and issuing a genuine call to service. The Democrat who does so will get a lot of votes – and maybe mine.

Nathaniel Fick served as a Marine infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller "One Bullet Away."