LETTER TO EDITOR: No politics in the military

I so commend Susan Percy for writing this article.The Blue Stars for Obama definitely stepped over the line. It is interesting actually, that Michelle Obama knows nothing of the subtleties of the military, nor does her husband , who just leaves behind disappointed wounded soldiers in Germany. Learn about your own country first before you can talk about CHANGE.M.B.Ky.

Mrs. Percy has already had her concerns addressed when she posted this on a military board. The very articulate and thoughtful response she got the first time she posted this letter can be found here: http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1567352&page=2 Basically, she was told that Blue Star Families was founded to promote a "pro military, pro Obama" point of view. It was formed entirely on our ideas and our initiative. Sometimes the media solely associates supportive military family members with the Republican Party, and we know that not to be the case. We think our democracy is most vibrant when neither political party is seen to own the military and when patriotism resides in each. Specifically she was told, "It is important to us that our organization's code of conduct meets or exceeds government standards concerning military communities and political activity. We believe in those rules because most of us have felt a bit coerced politically at some point in our lives. Blue Star Family Members for Obama is made up entirely of volunteer family members of active duty service members; not the members themselves. We do not seek out active duty military members, nor do we permit our members to communicate our message to active duty members, or through them, via email, fax or any other form of official communication. Blue Star members are not permitted to use government equipment or government property to advance our cause. We have a website where people can sign up and prohibit members from seeking out spouses who are subordinates of Blue Star members' spouses. If any of these events occur we want to know immediately so that we can take corrective action." So, what is the problem again?

I'm the spouse of a physician and have experienced similar pressure from spouses of physicians my husband's career greatly depends upon. Ms. Percy clearly states that it's not only the service members themselves but their family members who might feel pressured to conform to a superior's (or their spouse's) political views. progressivegrl ignores this, thinking any legitimate concerns are answered by stating that service members themselves are not recruited for BSFO. This dances around the issue. Ms. Percy's concern seems to be legitimate -- protecting individuals from undue pressure. From BSFO's viewpoint, it should be an easily solved dilemma. If the Obama campaign truly values the military, it can recruit members themselves (no "military superior" pressure involved!) rather than having BSFO members do it themselves. This removes much of the coercive element.

First off, MilitaryTimes.com is a leftist website. Check out the spread they give to an Obama interview versus the little sidebar for an interview with Silver Star McCain. It is not military, is not supported by the military and in fact is quick to run with unproven allegations against our military men and women. Secondly, if you think getting a phone call from the Commanding Officer's wife or husband to find out who the team players are among his or her command is NOT inappropriate or improper then you are not intelligent enough to serve in the military. It is an outrageous violation of military protocol and it reflects the "rules for them, not us" attitude of those defending it.

As an early member of Blue Star Families for Obama, I'd like to thank Mrs. Percy for raising some important points and allowing us the opportunity to correct any misconceptions about our group. We founded Blue Star Families to promote a "pro military, pro Obama" point of view. It was formed entirely on our ideas and our initiative. Sometimes the media solely associates supportive military family members with the Republican Party, and we know that not to be the case. Like any other grassroots coalition, Blue Star Families for Obama began from the ground up, not at the request of Senator Obama, Michelle Obama or any staff or volunteer of the campaign. The campaign's staff reached out to us after Blue Star Families was formed because of her interest in helping military families. We provided her with information about our group and our scheduled events. Blue Star military family for Obama membership (or any form of endorsement of Senator Obama) is in no way a requirement for participation in any of the campaign's activities. It is important to us that our organization's code of conduct meets or exceeds government standards concerning military communities and political activity. Blue Star Family Members for Obama is made up entirely of volunteer family members of active duty service members; not the members themselves. We do not seek out active duty military members, nor do we permit our members to communicate our message to active duty members, or through them, via email, fax or any other form of official communication. Blue Star members are not permitted to use government equipment or government property to advance our cause. We have a website where people can sign up and prohibit members from seeking out spouses who are subordinates of Blue Star members' spouses. If any of these events occur we want to know immediately so that we can take corrective action. We do, however, respectfully disagree with the opinion about our right to exist as a voluntary organization. Military families have borne the burden of the Iraq war alone for more than five years. We have as much or more at stake in this election as any other section of the electorate. And we strongly believe that Senator Obama has our interests at heart, as evidenced by his recent co-sponsorship of the GI Bill, his vote to stop cuts in Tricare reimbursements, and his efforts to support better VA funding for our veterans as opposed to cutting VA spending. We are proud of our status as military family members, and we support Barack Obama for president. We are military spouses first, and engaged citizens second. Our hope is that we can express our support for this campaign in a way that showcases the pride and enthusiasm that we have seen from military spouses, Democrat and Republican, everywhere we go. For more information, please visit http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/BlueStarsForObama.

Once again, the response does not address Percy's core argument that it is the spouses, not the active service members, who may feel pressured. Well-written words can hide only so much . . . . And just because something meets regulations doesn't mean it's right.

Thanks AMorgan! I appreciate your group's willingness to address this in an open and forthright manner. Thanks for taking the time to respond to these concerns. It is kinda funny how these posters are so concerned about the pressure military spouses face *now* when they express opinions that may question the status quo. Where was the concern about politics when Bush used his "Mission Accomplished" pictures for campaigning? It takes courage for a junior spouse to voice concerns about this administration. If anything it is the more liberal among military spouses who have felt the pressure to be quiet for so long. They desperately want leadership they can believe in.

Thank you Susan Percy for writing such an eloquent letter. I am appalled at the decision of the Obama campaign to exploit the "Blue Star" for political opportunism. The "Blue Star" is a powerful, non-partisan, non-political symbol that has been historically used by mothers of all backgrounds to display when they sent a child to war in defense of our nation, and has now extended to all family members of a deployed servicemember. It is a symbol of unity and pride, not a political statement. The decision to use the "Blue Star" for political activism has brought the already disappointing campaign season to a new low. There is "audacity" in the Obama campaign -- the audacity to corrupt such a cherished and non-partisan symbol for political ends. Furthermore, the choice of the "founders" of BSFO to exploit their relationships to servicemembers on active duty is regrettable, and, I agree, crosses an unspoken line with respect to decorum and expectation of neutrality. While it is perfectly acceptable to campaign for any cause as an individual, it is inappropriate to campaign openly declaring the military status of your spouse, which implies a tacit approval and endorsement. Furthermore, it is questionable whether or not this alleged "grassroots" group has an authority and/or right to "borrow" the symbolism of the "Blue Star" for political purposes. The Blue Star is a DOD-authorized symbol, and, to my knowledge, the only authorized users are the non-profit, non-partisan "Blue Star Mothers of America"...has anyone asked if they have given their approval for their title/symbol to be "borrowed" for political purposes? The actions of the BSFO team are an embarrassment to the sorority of military wives. Shame.

AMorgan states, "Blue Star military family for Obama membership (or any form of endorsement of Senator Obama) is in no way a requirement for participation in any of the campaign's activities". However, in a recent Blue Stars for Obama event here in Norfolk, a retired United States Marine wanted to participate and was turned away from the event. Go to http://www.wavy.com/global/story.asp?s=8796707&srvc=leadstory to read about that. Just the facts, please. It seems like the Blue Stars for Obama is more for show than for substance.

Oh come on, now, really. BSFO has no more "command influence" on military spouses than Henn Baskets or Silpada Jewelry, local political candidate or any other organization who invites military spouses to events. You can't be suggesting that if the CO's wife asks me to attend a Pampered Chef party at her house that I can't decline that invitation because of her rank without fear of repercussion, are you? As a spouse with 22 years of active duty experience and the mother of a current service member, Ms. Percy, you really insult the intelligence of men and women married to a member of the military when you assert that I have lost my right to campaign for one candidate over another. My husband may have relinquished his right; I did not. We are intelligent, regardless of our spouse's rank, and can make our own decisions regarding our political affiliations. I can't help but wonder if you aren't of the "old military school of thinking," where the spouse was required to leave a calling card when attending a tea at the commander's residence, or wear her husband's rank in all things military. Those days are long gone. I can only assume you eagerly swallow this administration's continual use of our military and their spouses to push its agenda -- and that of the other presidential candidate without difficulty. I do not. The stakes are too high here. The lives of our spouses and children are at risk. Unless there has been a written policy change, military spouses are permitted to campaign and vote for the candidate of their choice -- including the active recruitment of other like-minded individuals. Perspective from another Virginia military spouse/mother.

RE: tlcesq comments: No ma'am, as a remarried military widow whose second spouse also served over 30 years in uniform, as the mother of an active duty son soon to deploy a second time to a war zone and as mother in law to an active duty son in law, I would never insult the intelligence of any military member or spouse; I hold all in high regard no matter their political leanings. I do not however equate proselytizing for political candidates with either Pampered Chef or tea parties and never left calling cards at either. Nor do I believe a military spouse cannot campaign for a candidate. I've done it; for several candidates from both major parties and was, I think, quite effective without resorting to inappropriate tactics. I did not use the communication network collected via my military connections to solicit others to my point of view. THAT was my issue with how the Obama campaign was addressing "enlistment" of service wives by other service wives and would be my issue with any subsequent campaigns that chose to do the same. The "unwritten prohibition" against military wives doing so reflects the mantra that explains the evolution and rationale for every military reg and protocol. They are "written in the blood"--literally and figuratively--of those gone before...including those who stand and wait. It's not the "old military school of thinking" I support. Rather, when all contingencies are carefully considered as to which render the military most effective on the battle front AND the homefront, keeping politics out of the equation has proved, over time, the optimum. Does the junior officer's wife or the corporal's wife fear repercussions? You don't know and I don't know. Erring then, should be on the side of keeping intimidation to a minimum. In no other context is that more germaine than in the military community. It's interesting and revealing that the assumption is made about me--from my defense of a long held protocol--that I "eagerly swallow" the positions of the current administration. That's exactly the type of knee jerk branding and polarization that military wives should continue to avoid. Susan Percy

Progressivegirl, are you a military wife?You certainly don't sound like one.You are missing all points. Ms.Percy is trying to protect "YOU" from being harrassed. TO:yyzborn, when you get the answer to your very good question, would you mind posting it? Did the "Blue Star Mother's of America" in fact, "approve this message?" To Riceowl89: You are so wise, "well written words CAN only hide so much." To: Ms.Percy or persugram, you are not "old school" some things will always stand as ethical. MarleneB

Isn't it really all just conjecture, and are you trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill? You don't cite one instance where the spouse of a junior officer or enlisted complained about being "harassed" by BSFO -- just a fear that it might happen. Were you active duty in the past presidential election cycle? If not, you'd be surprised to learn there are thousands of military spouses who are actively engaged in the political process -- even some who's political views differ from their spouse's. In case you haven't noticed, the military has evolved considerably; our spouses are male and female -- not just the "sisterhood of military wives" you think you are trying to protect.

I have been approached in this Blue Stars for Obama push - and there are many like me. I haven't come forward and made an issue of it because I would be labeled a McCain supporter (when in fact, I'm an independent). I'm a firm believer that what spouses do on their own time and free of references from the military is one thing, but when people use the military spouse networks to try to recruit for any candidate, it's offensive and inappropriate(and I HAVE seen it happen very recently). If you don't think spouses can influence one another (i.e. senior spouses to junior), than I must ask TLCESQ: When was the last time you really interacted with an E-3 spouse or an 0-1 spouse? Perhaps you choose not to be involved (every bit your right) or perhaps you are too good to interact with them and prefer your "like-minded" friends. You'll find them to be an intelligent and diverse group. But they are not all like you. That diversity is a wonderful thing and we must protect it. I am not saying that military spouses can't campaign or get involved in politics, but it should not cross the line into military spouse networks. Military spouses should be FREE to participate in command spouse activities without the turmoil of politics. Keep YOUR politics out of OUR military spouse networks.

One more time,ticesq : I believe in being engaged in politics. I vote, I campaign, I work as an election official. But I know that the prohibition on wives bringing politics into the military community is NOT based on ME. In fact, it's NOT about me at all. It's about the big picture in which every piece of grit that might clog the military machine should be avoided so that spouses in battle aren't worried about the political battles their spouses are involved in back home with other spouses within the military. That's what drives military protocols, regulations, etc...the lessons learned over time, not some alternative/modern idea of what it means to be hip and "liberated". With liberation comes responsibility, which I understand, especially in war. It's important for wives to avoid divisive activities that pit military sister against sister. Morale of husbands or wives overseas probably isn't pumped up by complaints from spouses that other spouses "eagerly swallow" (translation: she's an idiot) one ideology or another. Your automatic assumptions about me, all of which would be laughed out of a room of those who know me--liberal and conservative--indicate that your propensity to form opinions about people who disagree with you on policy (forget politically)without knowing them, is the best example I can give for the importance of this particular protocol.