|
 he best that can
be said for the Bush administration's decision to stop military
training on the island of Vieques is that it is a Solomonic one.
Alas, in this instance, it has all the appeal of actually splitting
the proverbial baby in two.
In one fell swoop, the president's subordinates, led by his top
political adviser, Karl Rove, have eliminated the one and only training
range in the Atlantic where submarines, ships, aircraft, and amphibious
troops can conduct realistic and vital combined-arms exercises.
The U.S. military — which had repeatedly been assured by the
Bush team that "help is on the way" and the Clinton years of subordinating
national security to political considerations were over--is understandably
appalled, and furious.
After all, those responsible for ensuring the safety and combat
effectiveness of Navy and Marine Corps personnel sent into harm's
way (e.g., every Atlantic seaboard-based unit deployed to the Persian
Gulf) understand that troops whose first exposure to what Clauswitz
called "the fog of war" comes in actual battle are likely to suffer
needless casualties — and perhaps be unable to prevail.
Even more troubling to the military was the president's off-the-cuff
explanation for this decision, as explained this week in Goteborg,
Sweden. The three reasons he cited were: "One, there's been some
harm done to people in the past. Secondly, these are our friends
and neighbors, and [third] they don't want us there." Unfortunately,
these conditions apply, to one degree or another, just about everywhere
the U.S. armed forces practice their necessarily noisy, disruptive,
and/or destructive craft.
They certainly apply in spades in Okinawa, the lynchpin of America's
forward presence in East Asia and home to training areas every bit
as essential to the readiness of U.S. forces in the Pacific as Vieques
is to their Atlantic-based counterparts. Indubitably, the basis
upon which the Bush administration has bailed out of Vieques will
undercut the Japanese government, which has faced increasingly insistent
pressure from Okinawans to end the U.S. "occupation" of their island.
For that matter, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that communities
in the United States itself, tired of the inconvenience of being
neighbors to live-fire ranges or simply lusting after the valuable
real estate currently reserved for the military's use, will want
equal treatment with the Puerto Ricans. Even in the absence of the
ominous Vieques precedent, such demands were on the rise —
thanks to the reality that fewer and fewer Americans have any connection
to the armed forces. Now, such claims may become irresistible.
Matters are made worse by the indignation of the Puerto Rican activists
and their friends (like Sen. Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Gov.
George Pataki, and Fidel Castro) who want to know why two years
more must pass before the bombing, gunfire, and armed landings stop
at Vieques. Having disconnected the order for the Pentagon to find
someplace else to train from the requirement to find that place
first, there is no obvious basis upon which demands for an immediate
cessation can be resisted. The pressure will only further exacerbate
an already growing rift between America's civilians and the military
sworn to defend them.
In the wake of a firestorm of criticism over the Vieques decision,
the White House has tried to insist it was made "on the merits."
And yet, the contention that it was motivated by, as spokesman Ari
Fleischer put it, the president's commitment to "ensuring that our
military is trained for the mission required," is laughable. Had
that really been the top priority, we would have resumed live-fire
training at Vieques suspended by President Clinton and made clear
that the island would remain an active exercise area for the foreseeable
future.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the young Bush administration
— which came to office on a platform of ending the Clinton-Gore
practice of compromising vital national security interests in order
to satisfy perceived political dictates — has engaged in just
such behavior. For example, a few weeks ago, the White House overrode
legitimate Pentagon objections to the sale to a foreign buyer of
this country's last manufacturer of the equipment needed to mass-produce
high-quality electronic chips. The Washington Post reported
this week that that action, which could have highly deleterious
implications for defense production in the future, followed a meeting
between a principal backer of the deal, Intel, and a man who at
the time held $100,000 worth of Intel's stock, Karl Rove.
The Bush administration has also alarmed those familiar with the
deplorable condition of the armed forces bequeathed by Bill Clinton.
They had been encouraged to expect that the promised "help on the
way" would promptly translate into additional resources needed to
fix well-documented shortfalls in maintenance, training, and procurement.
Budgetary restraint has, however, been the order of the day to date,
causing the president's (Fiscal Year) 2001 supplemental request
to be seriously inadequate. The same seems likely to be true of
an amendment now being made to the Pentagon's budget request for
Fiscal Year 2002. Insult has been added to injury to the extent
that the military's top commanders feel their views and concerns
have not been heard, let alone given proper weight, in the administration's
deliberations.
Ironically, if President Bush is perceived to be pandering to ethnic
constituencies, big-business interests, and single-minded tax-cut
advocates at the expense of his commitment to rebuild the U.S. military
and restore American power, he runs a serious risk not only of undermining
national security. He may also alienate a key element of his political
constituency without which neither he nor his Republican party will
fare well in future elections: the active-duty military and the
millions of others in and out of uniform — National Guard and
Reserve personnel, veterans, defense contractors, their employees
and unions, and other patriotic Americans — who once formed
the Reagan defense coalition. Corrective action on this front is
urgently needed, now.
|
