Counterculture assault on the military
The Washington Times
June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition Frank J. Gaffney Jr
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
Counterculture assault on the military
Frank J. Gaffney Jr
The Washington Times; Part A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A15
June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition
There is a singularly troubling aspect of the Clinton administration's mismanagement of the defense and foreign policy portfolios: The prospect that damage is being done, apparently purposefully, to the institutions and personnel charged with safeguarding the nation's security - at least some of it damage that will be exceedingly difficult to undo.
Examples abound of what might best be described as a counterculture assault on the U.S. military and the American sovereignty it protects. Consider the following:
* The military is being systematically "hollowed out," thanks to the combined effects of its resources being reduced year after year even as the demand for its services grow inexorably. Never mind that this use is largely for peacekeeping, humanitarian functions, the extraction of American nationals from foreign crises or other non-combat missions. These tasks still wear out equipment and units tasked with performing them. It will take many years and immense investment to bring the U.S. armed forces back up to the levels of readiness and combat capability they enjoyed when Bill Clinton assumed the presidency.
* Against the possibility that the United States might somehow retain the means with which to project power effectively, the administration is subordinating the nation's freedom of action to myriad international arrangements. These include: insisting on securing U.N. Security Council or other multilateral blessing prior to U.S. use of force; agreeing to the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol that explicitly subjects any unilaterally mounted military operation or training activity to greenhouse gas emission restrictions; embracing a Law of the Sea treaty that will imperil, not protect, American interests in freedom of navigation and use of international waters; and proposing to allow U.S. servicemen and women to be prosecuted by an unconstitutional International Criminal Court.
* In a way the cruelest - and, arguably, most insidious - cut of all, however, has been the administration's assault on the military's code of conduct. It is bad enough having a commander in chief whose behavior betrays every principle of that code, from personal integrity and individual responsibility, to marital fidelity and a commitment to the truth. Then there are the corrupting effects of the Clinton team's political correctness including: its efforts to foist open homosexuality on the military, its use of double-standards to claim women equally fit and eligible for combat, and its destruction of the careers of those who dare to challenge these practices in the correct belief that they will be inimical to the armed forces' essential order and discipline.
Just when it seemed things couldn't get worse on this score, Mr. Clinton nominates an individual to become secretary of the Air Force who epitomizes all that is wrong with his administration's war on the moral fiber of the U.S. military.
The nominee, Florida state Sen. Daryl Jones, seems to fit the Clinton selection criteria perfectly: He is an Air Force Academy graduate with experience flying fighter aircraft, a businessman and politician who happens to be an African-American. (He enjoys support from certain Republicans for reasons that appear to stem primarily from the last of these attributes.) Unfortunately, Mr. Jones also fits the profile of many who populate what President-elect Clinton once promised would be the "most ethical administration in history" - he seems to have a chronic problem with telling the truth.
In Mr. Jones' case, this problem has manifested itself in: the nominee's misrepresentations - among other places, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which must confirm him - of his flying record and status (according to some accounts, resulting in his receipt of unearned extra pay for several years); his reported violation of Pentagon regulations by running for elective office using a billboard and other promotional material displaying him in uniform; and Mr. Jones' abuse of his position as an officer by inducing enlisted subordinates to purchase Amway products he was distributing. His business activities are also the subject of an SEC investigation over allegations of possible criminal misconduct. His conflicting statements about these and other matters have contributed to an eight-month delay so far in his confirmation and not one, but two, FBI background checks.
If the armed services are lucky, the individuals - often political hacks and contributors - who fill what are generally regarded as plum patronage positions, more ceremonial than substantive, pass their time in office as non-entities. Occasionally, someone of genuine ability makes a real contribution.
The position of service secretary, however, is one in which a person of flawed or disreputable character can do real harm. As the most immediate symbol of civilian control of the military, such an individual can, for example, compound the lack of confidence and demoralization that many military personnel already feel in their leadership. This may be especially true in the Air Force, which is suffering a potentially catastrophic loss of skilled pilots from its ranks. One of these, a 20-year veteran and experienced F-16 pilot who served in Mr. Jones' reserve unit, has resigned his commission in protest over this appointment; others may well follow suit if Mr. Clinton's nominee is confirmed as secretary of the Air Force.
The cost of training a front-line military pilot is estimated to be on the order of $6 million each. The loss of these critical personnel is, therefore, an economic problem as well as one that bears upon the readiness and warfighting capability of the U.S. Air Force. Neither that service nor the nation can afford a secretary of the Air Force who is likely to compound this problem and otherwise advance the counterculture assault on the U.S. military.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the director of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
freerepublic.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
