Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | April 10, 2003 | Matt Miller

[baseballmom]

Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree

With that indelible image of Saddam's toppling statue forever banishing the doubts of the armchair generals, and with the amazing achievements of the United States armed forces coming into sharper relief, it's time for all honest observers - and especially conservatives - to confront a simple fact:

The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.

This should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship. We've been told repeatedly how much more lethal and accurate our forces are in 2003 than they were in 1991 - so much so that we needed only 250,000 troops to drive to Baghdad and change the regime, as opposed to the 500,000 we sent merely to oust Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I. Something like 90 percent of the bombs and missiles we use are "precision guided" today, versus roughly 10 percent back in 1991. The catalogue of how today's military is smarter, faster and better than it was back during Desert Storm is a credit to U.S. ingenuity and a source of national pride.

Hmm. Let's see. Between 1992 and 2003, the person who was president for the bulk of that time was... Bill Clinton. It's true that President Bush has been throwing money at the Pentagon since Sept. 11, but defense planners will tell you that none of the impressive leaps in our military capability have taken place suddenly in the last 18 months.

No, much as it must incense Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay, we are liberating Iraq with Bill Clinton's military. The same Bill Clinton, of course, who, as conservative myth has it, "gutted" and "hollowed out" our fighting forces - that is, when he wasn't busy shredding the moral fabric of the country, his first priority.

What should we make of this fact?

The main truth it underscores is how divorced the defense debate is from real life. The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years.

The reality is that Bill Clinton's defense budgets roughly tracked the blueprint left by then-defense secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War to protect his party's right flank. For the same reason, Al Gore called for bigger defense budgets during the 2000 campaign than did George W. Bush - a fact that almost no one recalls. Gore needed to "prove" his "toughness" on defense with dollars. Bush didn't have to - as a Republican, he was simply more trusted on the issue.

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's laudable initial aim was to reform the Pentagon in Nixon-to-China fashion, as only Republicans can. Yet Rumsfeld had hit a storm of bureaucratic, congressional and interest group opposition by September 2001. In the wake of 9/11, therefore, Bush and Rumsfeld decided that reform was a luxury; better to throw money at everything, they reasoned, since the public would support it and worry about rationality later.

Beyond the U.S. military's peerless firepower and skill, however, this spending spree masks dramatic waste and disorganization that cries out for attention. As one Bush cabinet official told me privately, "Not too far down the road, Rumsfeld will get back on the track of rationalizing defense spending so that it doesn't go into a runaway mode."

That reform agenda is for another day - for now, it's time to celebrate the extraordinary courage and accomplishments of our troops. To be sure, the risks and dangers they face in Iraq aren't over - and America's responsibility to help Iraqis build their own future has only begun.

Still, this milestone is indisputably historic.

Yes, Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld and their teams deserve enormous credit, and President Bush's steely resolve may give even Jacques Chirac a secret shiver of apres-war doubt.

But all the same, I hope all honest Americans - and I know that includes you, Rush and Tom - join me in toasting the unrivaled capabilities of the military that Bill Clinton handed off to his successor.

Columnist Matt Miller is a senior fellow at Occidental College in Los Angeles and host of "Left, Right & Center" on KCRW-FM in Los Angeles. E-mail him at mattino@worldnet.att.net.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

They were cannibalizing nuclear cruise missiles to load with conventional warheads because the Army was out and the Navy was almost out. We spent 18 months rebuilding stocks with shifts working around the clock before we could think about war in Iraq.

[mystery-ak]

In the winter of 1999 my 23yo nephew(Navy) was killed in an accident.
I handled all the arrangements for his funeral, my brother was devastated(still is)...I dealt with the Navy...they asked me at the time if I wanted *the letter signed by the President*..signed by Clinton or to wait until after the election of 2000...I told them wait until after the election...hehe

[Miss Marple]

You know, if it had been someone else in office in the winter of 1999, you wouldn't have been given the choice. The Navy no doubt knew most people's preference, and offered the choice.

[c-b 1]

The Military made these advances IN SPITE of Moscow Willie.

[livis_dad]

As I read through this article I kept waiting for the sarcastic humor to surface, but I did get a good chuckle from the stupidity of it.

I can't believe the Philadelphia Enquirer's Editor allowed this garbage to print.
Is there nothing else to report on these days than Clinton's rule? I think everyone wants to forget that time.

[mystery-ak]

You are exactly right...I was told by a Navy spokesman, strictly on the hush hush, that many families requested no letter or after election letter....no one wanted a letter signed by Clinton...LOL

[doug from upland]

Sorry, the man who loathed the military does not get credit. It took the vision of George Bush to get this done. It was also helpful to know that the commander in chief had the respect of those who serve.

[Theyknow]

"Let me get this straight. The military successes must be clinton's doing, but Enron, the economy, etc must be President Bush's responsibility? Riiiight!"

Enron? Clinton did nothing for the military and we all know it will be years before the economy recovers.That said, Bush is cutting Veterans benefits. Neither is/was "promilitary." Enron was no more Clinton's fault than Bush's fault, there will always be corruption in business.

It would be better if papers didn't publish this anti-American crap, enough is enough.

[Lancey Howard]

LOL, I've seen this guy Miller's columns from time to time. After you read a couple you don't bother anymore. Miller is in the same category as leftist mice like Joe Conason, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, Ellen Goodman, and Helen Thomas. He's just another lying scumbag. So, you know what he is and you just stay away. I hope nobody gets agita over this stuff.

[Lancey Howard]

Scumbag must be crapping his pants over all the attention and accolades Bush is getting for his leadership and success. He must be drinking and snorting himself silly. Wonder what he's doing these days?

[gedeon3]

This is the email I sent to this dude. I lost my temper and became offensive, but it is now too late; the email has been sent.

You are an imbecile who thinks intelligent, well informed Americans are as stupid as the left wing, anti-USA, clinton loving pigs. The so called 'peace dividend', cut our military, crippled the CIA, FBI and other agencies. The rapist was always chasing women, doing drugs, looking for photo ops, and getting drunk, while terrorists were coming in and out of the country. The only answer to terrorists attacks in NY, Africa and the USS Cole was a bunch of hot air, lots of missiles fired into empty tents, aspirin factories, and empty caves. In fact, with the 'show' put out by this traitor, in the Balkans and other 'targets', the pig clinton depleted our missiles to very dangerous levels, without replacing stock to the levels needed. Clinton closed scores of military bases, retired lots of Navy ships, caused scores of good Americans in the military to get out of the military (out of disgust for such coward 'president'), introduced heavy political correctness, and more fags in the military, and sold our secrets to our enemies. Our military equipment was hurting for the lack of spare parts; our pilots, sailors and soldiers not being trained properly because of cuts, lack of ammo, and low moral.

If there is anything we need to thank this piece of sh*t called bill clinton, is for 9-11.Why don't you go to NY and perform a 'monica' on the rapist, to complete your job?

R Benk

[MACVSOG68]

re: 108. Stand by what I said. Most democrats blame Bush for Enron and the economy, both of which Bush dealt with and continues to deal with, and both of which became problems during clinton's term. But democrats now credit the military successes to clinton's policies. As a military vet and retiree, I'll take Bush any day over clinton, who hated the military.

[an amused spectator]

If there is anything we need to thank this piece of sh*t called bill clinton, is for 9-11.Why don't you go to NY and perform a 'monica' on the rapist, to complete your job?

Matthew Miller's preferred lip balm is brown, and is distilled from Bill Clinton's used shorts. ;-)