Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Politically tarnished Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 14:38:17 EST Message-ID: \SE G;COMMENTARY \SS (WS) \HD Politically tarnished brass? \BY Harry Summers \DT NORFOLK, Va. NORFOLK, Va. - The upcoming national elections were clearly on the minds of the colonels and Navy captains attending the senior course at the Armed Forces Staff College here. Among those students I spoke with, there was a sense of disgust with those retired generals and admirals who recently publicly endorsed Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. While the students acknowledged the right of those officers to do so, they also said that, to some degree, such open advocacy compromised the longstanding American military tradition of noninvolvement in domestic partisan politics. There is a good reason for that tradition. Upon being commissioned, military officers take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey the orders of those (regardless of political party) who are appointed over them. Today President Bush, as commander in chief of the armed forces, has the military's unwavering loyalty and support. And if Mr. Clinton is elected next Tuesday, he will have it as well. With that eventuality in mind, there was some discussion as to what kind of commander in chief Mr. Clinton might turn out to be if he wins the election. What would he do, for example, at a time of crisis? Would he stand tall, or would he cut and run? All current speculation aside, the truth is that until such a crisis comes, the answer is unknowable. As a fellow Arkansan, Gen. Douglas MacArthur (born in Little Rock in 1880) told the Senate in 1935, in words that apply to presidents as well as to military officers, "There is really no measure in time of peace which can determine who are the brilliant combat officers." There were those "who everybody thought were of extraordinary merit," MacArthur said, who collapsed in time of crisis, while others who had been written off as mediocre "exhibited traits of character which . . . brought them to the front at once." Into which category would "President" Clinton fall? Even Mr. Clinton himself cannot answer that question, for no man can know the depths of his own courage. But if history is any guide, Mr. Clinton as president would be shaped and molded both by the enormous responsibilities of the Oval Office as well as by the terrible pressures of world events. "The specifics of Clinton's defense plans," says Rep. Les Aspin, Wisconsin Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, "grow out of his . . . insight . . . that the dissolution of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of defense. . . . Clinton's program starts with the cold-eyed, correct premise that 'power is the basis for successful diplomacy, and military power has always been fundamental to international relations.' " "American leadership should be firmly on the side of what he called 'the powerful global movement toward democracy and market economies. . . . Our strategic interests and moral values both are rooted in this goal.' " Among the key attributes of Mr. Clinton's defense programs, Mr. Aspin says, is adequate strategic air and sea lift, including support for the construction of new ships and for the C-127 air-lifter. "The Clinton program also makes good use of our National Guard and reserve forces, giving them a real combat role in our contingency plans for the future." Mr. Aspin goes on to say "Bill Clinton has identified the two big 'keepers.' He calls them 'the keys to our victory in the Gulf.' They are our high-quality personnel and our high-tech edge." To that end, "Clinton has pledged to define the core skills and industries necessary to America's security, to pursue technologies with both military and civilian uses, and to maintain production capability with upgrades to existing weapons and limited production of next generation weapons." The downside is "Clinton's program would cut about 5 percent more than [the 25 percent] Bush proposes over the next five years." These cuts, Mr. Aspin says, are in line with the conclusions both he and Sen. Sam Nunn, Georgia Democrat, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have reached. This consensus already arrived at between Mr. Clinton and key leaders in Congress on the shape of the future military almost guarantees that if he is elected his programs will be rapidly adopted. But campaign rhetoric is not always the best indicator of future presidential behavior. "How can you raise taxes when during a campaign speech in Cleveland you pledged never to do that?" an aide supposedly asked President Franklin Roosevelt after he assumed office in 1933. "Simple," said Roosevelt. "Deny I was ever in Cleveland." The only way to find out for sure what kind of commander in chief Mr. Clinton would be is the way we have found out with every president in our history. Pull the lever in the election booth, and then, with fingers crossed, sit back and wait to see. Harry G. Summers Jr., a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a distinguished fellow of the Army War College and a nationally syndicated columnist. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM