Commander-in-Chief Needs Strong Military For His Job

The principal issue in the election campaign – military defense -- is not registering on the voters’ radar screens. However, it is half the job of our president/commander-in-chief.

Oh yes, Gov. Bush is trying to make military readiness an issue, but Vice-president Gore is trying to start a social war between the “wealthy” and the “working people.”

Unilateral disarmament has been a worrisome trait of representative democracy since the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1785. As usual Congress gutted our four military services when the Soviet Union gave up the Cold War.

When we are dragged into wars, we have had to start from scratch to defend ourselves or our interests. The cost in lives and treasure under this circumstance has been horrendous. However, victory has been possible given enough time and public will. Time is no longer a luxury in a world of ballistic missiles, satellites and nuclear bombs.

President Jimmy Carter was humiliated by presiding over the World War II disarmament. He had to rent ships to mount a mission to try and rescue American hostages in Iran. Five helicopters and a contingent of rescuers floundered in the desert.

President Ronald Reagan and Vice-President George Bush, Sr., re-armed our Defense Department sufficiently to drive back Iraq from the Persian Gulf oil fields.

Then came Draft-dodger Bill Clinton and Vietnam Special-treatment Al Gore. They gutted the military to supplement the largest tax increase in history and assuage everybody’s pain at home and abroad.

Troops are stationed in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, Yugoslavia Somalia, and the Mideast while maintaining strong forces in Japan, Korea and NATO Europe – all this on a defense budget shrinking relatively to domestic spending and the economy.

Gov. Bush vows to strengthen the U.S. military. He decries the declining enlistment of recruits (except in the gung-ho Marines), flight from service by pilots and engineers, shortage of parts and sagging morale of Army personnel.

Families of service men had to obtain food stamps in order to eat until last year. Clinton, stung by criticism, cut off Agricultural Department assistance and raised housing allowances to compensate.

Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Gulf War victor Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf support Bush’s promise to strength the military. .

Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen, and his Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Henry H. Shelton, deny there are any problems in the military. Yet, they testified otherwise last week to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

Shelton stated the military is no longer declining but the next president should beef up our armed forces sufficiently to fight two wars simultaneously or give up the global peacekeeping role.

The Joint Chiefs declared that to continue present commitments they had to have as much as $100 billion a year more than the $286 billion now allocated.

Shelton indicated that the generals and admirals favor some peacekeeping duties and interventions to protect U.S. national interests. However, a great deal more money will have to be invested in defense.

Competition between military and domestic spending is eternal. In view of U.S. global commitments, the military is short changed. It must be adequately funded for the missions assigned, or we should let regional wars play themselves out without U.S. intervention.

This is appealing until a regional war involves oil or a strategic ally. Balkan and sub-Sarah African genocides are of little strategic importance to the United States. However, an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Israel or South Korea would be cause for instant action.

The huge, military presence of the U.S. in Europe deserves reevaluation. Russia no longer is a threat there. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may have lost its value – unless we need it as a staging base for interventions elsewhere. It does seem that the Balkan mess is more a European concern.

Here in Fortress America, we yearn to be left alone to enjoy the bounty of our natural resources – globalization be damned. Money spent on the military diminishes that which could be directed to poor, sick, disadvantaged and overworked citizens – or to maintain a pristine environment.

Realistically, there are other nations that covet our riches, dislike democracy or wish to be left alone to take what their neighbors own. Aggressors are a threat to everyone.

Our well being is bound by peaceful pursuits in a world community. Consequently we must promote peace, free market capitalism and individual freedom everywhere – even with some sacrifice on our part.

The bulwark of peace is a strong military. Our president/commander-in-chief should be given a defense capability to do the total job we expect of him -- and to keep it that way.

*it Lindsey Williams is a Sun-Herald columnist *io