Nothing concentrates the mind about the implications of presidential policy more than having your son shot at. I'm the father of a Marine who served in Bush's wars. Until I reregistered as an independent I was a life-long Republican. If Obama is nominated he will be the first Democratic candidate for the presidency I've voted for. My support for Obama is personal but I also think it represents a potential trend.
 
My son John volunteered in 1999. My son's service unexpectedly connected me to my country in a new way. Suddenly every young person wearing a military uniform, of whatever class, race or gender was my child and every military parent was my brother or sister. This visceral connection humbled me. I had never served. Why did I deserve the honor of belonging (even by proxy) to the diverse family of Americans who are willing to sacrifice for the rest of us? What could I offer in return? Nothing but solidarity, gratitude and a deeper love of country.
 
I'm no expert on the military. Nevertheless, I've learned as much as anyone in America about the military family. I know what I know because the military family has been talking to me--literally.

As a writer, I explored my son's military involvement through several best selling military-themed books and many articles for the Washington Post and other newspapers. The response has been intense. In the last 6 years, I've received over 10,000 often heartfelt emails from military people. I have learned a lot about what they believe.
 
This year the Republicans can't count on the military family's vote. Because Obama was right about Iraq, he may become the candidate of choice for far more pro-military voters than pundits might expect. Note: Since Senator Clinton voted for the war in Iraq she doesn't present a clear alternative to McCain or to the Republican Party. Of the Democratic candidates only Senator Obama has a chance to win the support of the military family. Here's why and here's how. 

If McCain would only say what I suspect he believes--that the Iraq war was a tragic mistake, that his support was a mistake and that our policy should be to take responsibility for the mess we've made, but that the best we can do is get out of Iraq as fast as is possible while causing as little harm as possible--I (and others who mourn Bush's folly) might vote for him. Instead he is talking about "winning" and staying in Iraq for many years. How do you win a war you never should have started which was based on misinformation that morphed into outright lies?
 
McCain is face-saving and pandering to the Republican base at the expense of our military family. (Disclosure: In 2000 I went on several radio shows to argue for McCain's candidacy. A few years later McCain wrote a kind endorsement for one of my military-related books. I think it is a national tragedy that the Republican establishment destroyed his chances in 2000. Had he been president on 9/11 I'm sure that however he reacted to the attack on America that his actions would never have included invading Iraq.)
 
It makes me sad that I can't support McCain but I can't because the Republicans and Democrats share something besides trying to figure out what to do about Iraq. Both parties share a primary election system in which the ideological fringes have outsized importance. To get the nomination, candidates pander to the extremes. This pandering has fatally undermined any Republican's ability to lead us out of the mess Bush made. 

Obama panders too when he promises we'll be out of Iraq in a year or so. He knows this is fiction. But Obama's pandering to his base is less dangerous than McCain's "never surrender!" pandering. That's because the ideological fringe of the Democratic Party is less dangerous than the ideologically extreme wing of the Republican Party.

The Democratic ideologues are merely unrealistic idealists, the sorts of village idiots that picket Marine recruiters in Berkley. The Republican ideologues are bellicose warmongers who tarnish America's reputation and get our people killed. They are the torture enthusiasts, the war-of-choice enthusiasts, the radio talk show jerks who send other people's children to wars their own kids don't volunteer for. The Republican fringe goads America into acting like a bully. They are believers in a form of American exceptionalism that--spewed by bizarre apocalypse-obsessed religious right evangelicals and/or Dr. Strangelove neocons--is a jingoistic, toxic, fear-driven myth of "they" against "us" that if unstopped, will result in wars without end. And above all the Republican fringe isn't a fringe at all: they've become the heart and soul of the ugly fear-mesmerized party in power. 
 
Republicans may talk about patriotism and honor but in fact through their stubborn support for Bush's war they have become our military's worst enemies. They literally get our men and women killed. But many of us in the military family have had it with the Republican's bellicose nonsense--Bush's "Bring it on!" and now McCain's version; "I'll chase bin Laden to the gates of hell!" Enough is enough. 

Through countless discussions I've had via email and in person and while speaking at the War College and many other military venues, I've learned that people in the military (at all levels and whether they will say so in public or not) are torn over their initial support for the war in Iraq. Why did we in the military family support the war in Iraq, at least at first? Picture rooting for your kid in a baseball game times ten thousand!  In other words any President can count on the root-for-the-home-team factor and more importantly, the protective edgy goodwill of military people, especially families, who are--in equal parts--incredibly proud of their child's (or spouse's) service yet terrified by its implications. This support has worn off.

Don't get me wrong, the military family's fierce loyalty to the military isn't wavering but there is a growing suspicion that America's military has suffered a grievous blow from an inept and intellectually unqualified president. Meanwhile our hard-fought legitimate war in Afghanistan is up for grabs. And even though post-surge some good things are indeed happening in Iraq, the military family knows that good things might happen anywhere in our troubled world that our military stepped in. If we were in Darfur we could stop a genocide. If we invaded Zimbabwe we'd be greeted as liberators. We could "solve" the nuke issue in North Korea... The list is endless. But everyone in the military family also knows that we can't be everywhere nor should we be. And except for the willingly self deceived, we know that Iraq had nothing more to do with 9/11 than the countries mentioned above. It would have made as much sense to invade Switzerland. 
 
We need a new beginning. McCain and/or Clinton are more of the same: leaders who contributed to a historic mistake that resulted in 4000 Americans needlessly killed and tens of thousands wounded, and a wave of anti-American hatred sweeping the world. McCain and Clinton won't apologize for their error. And a failure to tell the truth is no foundation on which to build a presidency.
 
Obama was right on Iraq from the start. Moreover because of his serendipitous ethnic, social and political background, Obama is uniquely positioned to reach out to the world and help restore America's image and thus make all our men and women in uniform somewhat safer. Thus a vote for Obama is the true pro-military vote. And it is also a vote for honor because honor rests on truth.
 
Nevertheless if Obama is to win the military family vote and more importantly to be an effective commander-in-chief, he needs to convince the military family (and countless moderate Republicans and independents) that their...