"Sure, it's tempting to argue that 3 Doors Down are acting like flacks for the Bush administration."

I know the author is not arguing for this sentiment, merely raising it as a sentiment that some might have, but that sentiment has always been the number-one thing that bothers me about post-Vietnam liberalism. It's a perverse form of trickle-up politics: Kick the military in order to hurt the current presidential administration. Or, more precisely, because this war, or the most recent war, or some war a generation ago, was badly managed/shouldn't have been fought, then we should try to prevent the military from recruiting in our towns/states/schools/colleges. And anyone who helps with military recruiting is a shill for the administration/military-industrial-complex/imperialism.

Regardless of where one stands on this or any specific military engagement, or this or any other presidential administration, we have standing armed forces, and it is in the best interest of the nation that a sufficient number of the best-qualified young people join the armed forces each year. Being a soldier in a republic of free people is a noble thing, to be encouraged and honored. People who hold and express the opposing point of view on the matter should not expect to win elections, and for that reason I wish the people in my party who hold anti-service opinions would either change their minds or keep quiet, and when the overwrought National Guard recruiting video plays in the movie theater, pretend to enjoy it with the rest of the audience.

Plus, when I saw the video before "Juno" last week, I was impressed that they were using the word "soldier" instead of "warrior." When the American military took pride in the word "soldier", we won wars honorably. Now that the military calls its personnel "warriors," we lose wars and commit war crimes. That, and Genghis Khan had warriors; George Washington had soldiers.

Did I miss something?  When did we start referring to members of the Armed Forces as warriors?

drdanny -- You have never heard of the National Guard being referred to as "weekend warriors"?

And on a less lightweight note, here's the web page of the Army National Guard's "Warrior Training Center":

www.benning.army.mil/wtc

(Cough cough. Grumble grumble freakin' double post grumble grumble. Ahem.)

"We" have never referred to America's soldiers as "warriors." But the Defense Department has all but torn the "solar - sole" page from the official dictionary in order to expunge the word "soldier" from the official vocabulary. The Army in particular, but the other services as well, now talk about building warriors and the warrior ethic and even, God help us, "citizen-warriors." Military hospitals are there to heal "wounded warriors," and on and on. Someone needs to tell the Pentagon's cardboard generals that our men and women in uniform are not video-game ninjas, they're soldiers, and it's disrespectful to our soldiers, our history, and our republic to address the soldiers like they're some kind of barbarian tribe. And if you need a word to describe an American fighting man or woman who is tougher and grittier than a normal soldier, that word is "Marine," not "warrior."

Good post Barron. My first reaction was as you summarized but you make a sound case for it. Pity the "band" are so godf*ckingawful.

I think they need to pick the movies they show this before a tad more carefully. I took my 4 year old to see Alvin and Chipmunks this weekend and this video was on. It scared the crap outta him. Why the hell do we need to subject toddlers to this nonsense. There was not a single person in the theatre who fit the demographic they are shooting for (no pun intended). 35 year olds are too old and 4 year olds don't need to be exposed to this.

I was frankly, pissed.

I'm from  a family of mostly very active California Democrats (with some extremely funny and beloved Texas right wingers thrown in), some of whom have served in the military and I have never once heard of any of them dissing the military or it's members in any way.  

Most of my friends fall somewhere between center left and left (with some beloved wingers in there too) and I have never heard any of them even speak anything but respectfully of the military or its members.

It is in fact, a patriots job to protest any *mission* they disagree with or to call to accountability any leaders they mistrust.  

I thank God for that and the freedom to disagree with each other in this manner.  If someone is inclined to oppose all armed conflict, I can disagre with them without accusing them of attacking the military or undermining a leader because of their beliefs (I attend Quaker services sometimes and if I even dared to infer that those people disrespected the military, I'd have my head taken off in about  three seconds, passivist or not, and rightly so).

We're almost 40 years past Vietnam aren't we? Stereotypes about military bashing Democrats aren't based in much fact, it's a handy bugaboo for Republicans to win elections though.  I can only hope this next election finally puts that one out of it's misery.

The only bad thing about  that preview was its overall hokey-ness.  I'd prefer to see some of the brilliant PhD's presently running our military or any set of smart Captains, Majors will do - give a real presentation on real issues and simply asking for people to give back.  They'd be much more effective than any patronizing (gee whiz, let's appeal to young folks!) MTV-lite attempt.  

Wandreycer1, very thoughtful comments, and I couldn't agree more. Though I don't mind hokey-ness; I'm actually a complete sucker for hokey patriotism of the WWII propaganda poster, Sousa marches, painted eagle head variety.

I hope you don't think I'm impugning liberals in general (I am one!) as military bashers. But the fact is that a number liberals of a certain generation do actively and often successfully object to military recruitment in their towns, schools, and universities. They're against military participation in parades and events, against Junior ROTC programs in schools, against military recruiters being a part of high-school career/college counseling, and against ROTC programs at colleges and universities. These tend to be local issues, school board stuff, but these controversies do happen with some frequency around the country today, not in some mythic Vietnam-era past. (Though not as often in my half of the country last year than the several years prior.)