Rescuing the Military

Time was when critics of the military all sounded more or less like George McGovern. You could get a dose of vintage McGovern as recently as two years ago, during the Iowa caucuses. Then, in that marlinespike Prairie whine which, but for the attractions of graduate work in history and the Henry Wallace campaign, might have graced a pulpit instead of a political platform, the former senator took his litany to every Iowa church and high school. America scarcely deserves any military at all, it puts what it has to such wicked uses. The defense budget could easily and prudently be cut by 25 per cent. We should have “the courage and the common sense” to not build “one more nuclear weapon.” The reason for the gender gap was that women saw through Ronald Reagan’s “macho, John Wayne” image. And so on.

The recipe for responding to old-style anti-militarism was correspondingly simple: wave Old Glory, point out that the Soviets were goons, and vote for bigger arsenals. Of late, however, a new kind of military critic has appeared on the scene. The new critic recognizes—or, at least, does not deny—that America is good and the world dangerous. He argues, however, that America’s military stands in need of drastic overhaul. It gives too little bang for too many bucks. Its problems are structural and cannot be cured by mere infusions of cash. Such arguments appeal to liberals, in whom the instinct for Pentagon-bashing is still strong; and indeed, the most prominent politician among the new critics has been McGovern’s former campaign manager, Gary Hart. But they also appeal to conservatives’ antiWashington streak. “Why,” Paul Weyrich asks, “should conservatives trust a bureaucrat just because he’s in uniform?”

About the Author

Richard Brookhiser

Historian Richard Brookhiser is a senior editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

Time was when critics of the military all sounded more or less like George McGovern. You could get a dose of vintage McGovern as recently as two years ago, during the Iowa caucuses. Then, in that marlinespike Prairie whine which, but for the attractions of graduate work in history and the Henry Wallace campaign, might have graced a pulpit instead of a political platform, the former senator took his litany to every Iowa church and high school. America scarcely deserves any military at all, it puts what it has to such wicked uses. The defense budget could easily and prudently be cut by 25 per cent. We should have “the courage and the common sense” to not build “one more nuclear weapon.” The reason for the gender gap was that women saw through Ronald Reagan’s “macho, John Wayne” image. And so on.

The recipe for responding to old-style anti-militarism was correspondingly simple: wave Old Glory, point out that the Soviets were goons, and vote for bigger arsenals. Of late, however, a new kind of military critic has appeared on the scene. The new critic recognizes—or, at least, does not deny—that America is good and the world dangerous. He argues, however, that America’s military stands in need of drastic overhaul. It gives too little bang for too many bucks. Its problems are structural and cannot be cured by mere infusions of cash. Such arguments appeal to liberals, in whom the instinct for Pentagon-bashing is still strong; and indeed, the most prominent politician among the new critics has been McGovern’s former campaign manager, Gary Hart. But they also appeal to conservatives’ antiWashington streak. “Why,” Paul Weyrich asks, “should conservatives trust a bureaucrat just because he’s in uniform?”