Download PDF of this full issue: v24n1.pdf (11.8 MB)

Who's in charge here?

By Steve Geiger

President Clinton assumes a defensive posture towards the military establishment; his Administration suffers, his agenda is stymied, his political future is put at risk. He should stop acting like he has to make excuses for his draft history. Until he starts acting like the Commander-in-Chief he was elected to be, the military will bend him to their will.

Maybe he was naïve to try to fulfill his campaign promises on gays in the military right away. Maybe he failed to prepare the Pentagon adequately for the change. Certainly he allowed the issue to be redefined out from under his feet: somehow the problem became the "comfort" of heterosexuals instead of the safety and dignity of homosexuals. The Clinton team didn't think it through-they lost and have been in retreat ever since.

The military sees the President as weak and they do not respect weakness. Last March, the President visited the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, where he was the butt of jokes and gives about his policies. Last May, Major General Harold Campbell called the President a gay-loving, pot-smoking, draft-dodging womanizer at an Ari Force banquet in the Netherlands. He was finally docked a month's pay and retired ahead of schedule. But in October, Navy Secretary John Dalton wanted Chief of Naval Operations Frank Kelso disciplined for his sabotage of the Tailhook inquiry. Kelso kept his command, and not a single officer was court-martialed.

These incidents illustrate the background of far more serious military threats to administration policy. U.S. policies in both Somalia and Haiti demonstrate command failures. When Defense Secretary Les Aspin was asked to approve more armor for Somalia, he asked for clarification of the request. By the time this message made it back down through the chain of command it had become a denial. Seventeen Army Rangers were killed-at least one mutilated and dragged through the streets. Another was taken prisoner. Of course American policy in Somalia was muddle-headed, and the mission itself ill-advised.

The Haitian debacle is even stranger. A Navy transport turns away and the U.S. envoy beats a hasty retreat from a few dozen Haitian thugs, resurrected Macoutes. Yet the potential for violence in Port-au-Prince is well-known. The defiant confident Haitian military has been long established. So who would send an official entourage into a volatile situation with a handful of M.P.s with sidearm for protection? Maybe the Clinton team is more than usually inept, but security for the landing was a military responsibility.

The President's responses? Announce and set a date for the withdrawal from Somalia. Dismiss Les Aspin (and nominate Bobby Ray Inman, another guy with a comfort-level problem). Continue returning Haitian refugees to the brutal government.

Whatever we think about what we did in Vietnam, we don't make excuses about his decision. Twenty-five years ago Clinton took the same course chosen by thousands of others who are now doctors, lawyers,teachers, businessmen and construction workers. Some people paid dearly for the pacifist choice, though not many as dearly as the hundred of thousands who felt patriotic and signed up.

But the war in Indochina was not just any war; it was illegal and unjust. Young Bill Clinton had the democratic right to oppose the war, and he was right to oppose it. When President Clinton acts like he as something to be ashamed about, his credibility erodes. Leaving aside America's continuing failure to come to terms with the Vietnam experience, this loss of credibility is dangerous.

It also plays into the grudge the brass carry against him. It deprives him of any military policy. If they can make him look bad, they may not have him around after 1996. In the meantime with partisan political support they can defend their own turf, extracting as much cash from Congress as the traffic will bear. That's $291 billion a year.