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.

[raybo]

I've got 26 years in the USAF and I can tell you that Bill Clit had nothing to do wiht it. He was loathed

[CyberAnt]

Besides, it was the REPUBLICAN HOUSE in 1994 that succeeded in keeping x42 from gutting the military.

[cyncooper]

This talking point regarding the Iraq mission started being spread last night. The fax machine was buzzing evidently.

I distinctly recall that when Afghanistan was proven not to be a quagmire,this VERY SAME talking point emerged then!

Nobody bought it then, and certainly nobody will buy it now. It is insane!

One needs the brainpower to maneuver the military assets, and there isn't a single person in the clinton administration that possessed the wisdom or courage to wield the military force and make the decisions required to pull off this victory that squarely rests with George W. Bush AND those he chose to lead us.

[uncbob]

I posted that this is what would happen just after the war began

Only I said it would be Clinton that would make the statement

[bert]

"in spite of".....

or perhaps "clandestine"

[Rippin]

The most important dimension of military preparedness that can be greatly affect by a commander in chief in a short period of time must be morale. Now maybe we could take a survey about morale 3 years ago and morale now?

[Tribune7]

That paper is going to be gone in 5 years. Nobody reads it.

[antaresequity]

Matt Miller,

Credit Clinton?

It was a Republican congress that appropriated the funding and directed the spending despite Clinton’s effort to dismantle the military.

The middle management corp of the military hated Clinton…moral was at an all time low..and mass defection was the order of the day.

The reason we succeed is moral. Bush is responsible for returning moral to the American Military..his clearly superior morale character fuels the military moral.

And as you so adeptly point out in your article: “The reality is that Bill Clinton's defense budgets roughly tracked the blueprint left by then-defense secretary Dick Cheney in 1992”. Who's military is it? Dick Cheney's

Lastly: The myth that Democrats are "weak on defense" and the GOP is "strong" is one that Democratic strategists have struggled with for years. It's not a MYTH.

You leftist apologists make me sick...Especially when you have neither the knowledge nor skill of how the military actually operates.

Why don't you go down to your nearest military base and ask a soldier or an officer what he thinks of your 'Bill Clintons Military' theory. Wear your running shoes; you may need them.

Regards

[raybo]

I was close to getting out but I didn't want that idiot's signature on my retirement papers.

[mystery-ak]

Let's see, the rapist's military...officers, pilots, senior NCO's left in droves, because they despised him...my hubby's Chinook and Blackhawk companies cannibalized their aircraft for 6 years..screws from China that broke and grounded aircraft....My hubby was gonna retire in 2000, but stayed when Bush was elected.....yeah, that's the rapist's military.

[sean327]

This is complete and total garbage!! During the 8 dark years of the Klintoon administration, we had to give our left nut, right arm, and our first born up to get parts. Keeping equipment mission capable was damn near an exercise in futility. We had to cannabalize just to meet every day mission goals. The author of this piece of toilet paper needs to come talk to me or any one of my Marines who had to put up with this stuff on a daily basis for 8 long years.
Untill He does that, he will never know the hell Slick Willie put us through. Rant over! Semper Fi.

[TheCrusader]

If this is Bill Clinton's military, then this is also Bill Clinton's economy. :o)

[genefromjersey]

Can you say : chuzpah ??

[arichtaxpayer]

Rush Limbaugh had a military person call in when he was talking about this. He said it is their "Commander in Chief" that is the difference, not the equipment. I truly believe him.

[Argus]

I remember a friend who is a warrant officer in the Army telling us that under Clinton, they didn't even have enough live ammunition for training exercises. He said they spent most of their time on pc sensitivity training, and showed us the kind of pabulum recruits had to study. Our warriors hated Klinton's guts. This article is more swill from National Palestinian Radio.

[PLOM...NOT!]

Wear your running shoes; you may need them.

I think a flak jacket might be more appropriate.

[Arkie2]

I almost hit the abuse button when I read this crap. First of all, it's not how well armed this military was that made the difference, it was the leadership and the military's willingness to get the job done. Secondly, it's not Clinton's military, or Bush's for that matter. These jackals creeping out of the woodwork trying to garner some credit for Clinton are disgusting.

[peeve23]

Please help me while I puke about this article.

This is Ronald Reagan's army. The SDI program, the Shuttle program...combine those two and you have high tech weaponry.

[Praxeologue]

The brilliance of the current operation is in its strategic political and military boldness and determination, not in hardware.

My answer to the article is that it is irrelevant.

[Samwise]

OK, I'll try to explain this to you.

Rule 1 of Liberalism: Facts, logic, and consistency are irrelevant.