Column: Politically correct military isn't a strong military

Shortly after President Clinton took office in January 1993, some of his younger staffers made disparaging public remarks about uniformed military officers in the White House.

Things have changed since then, but not much. When it comes to the military, for the most part, this administration just doesn't get it.

That's why I was pleased to hear Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush defend the military last Tuesday in an important national security policy speech at the National Press Club in Washington. While advocating a U.S. missile defense system and proposing to cut America's nuclear arsenal to its "lowest possible number consistent with our national security," he also issued a strong statement in support of our armed forces.

"The one thing I won't do as president is to allow our military preparedness to slip below levels necessary to keep the peace," he said in answer to a question. "I won't let the morale of the United States military deteriorate as it has under the current administration. I understand it's important to have a well-focused, well-paid military to keep the peace."

Flanked by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, and retired Gen. Colin Powell - who could become Secretary of State or Defense in a Bush administration - the GOP candidate said his nuclear weapons reductions would be part of a broad national security review that must include a missile defense system. General Powell praised Gov. Bush "for taking a fresh look at the world."

I too think we need to take a fresh look at the post-Cold War world and it would be a good start to reduce nuclear arsenals while maintaining strong, well-trained armed forces. By contrast, the Clinton administration has damaged military readiness by slashing the Defense Department budget while simultaneously sending American troops into local and regional crises from Colombia to Kosovo. Not long after the impressive U.S. victory in Operation Desert Storm, the Clinton administration actually punished the general who won the short war in Kosovo.

According to National Journal managing editor Patrick Pexton, writing in the Washington Post, Gen. Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander in Europe during the Kosovo air campaign, was unceremoniously removed from his position for daring to disagree with the Pentagon and the White House.

"Clark turned over the European command to an officer more to the liking of the ever-cautious White House and Defense secretary," wrote Pexton.

Pexton revealed that Clark had opposed the gradualism of the initial bombing campaign against Belgrade, preferring to hit hard and massively at the outset. But American and European diplomats and politicians rejected Clark's battle plan, believing that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevich (still in power, by the way) "would yield after only a few bombs and cruise missiles, as he had in Bosnia." But they were wrong.

They were wrong again last February when they rebuked Clark for using 350 American soldiers to reinforce French troops who were unable to quell violence between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. Again, Clark understood the value of using force quickly and early to show who was in control, even if his bosses didn't. His "reward" was early retirement.

This is a typical example of how the Clinton administration misunderstands the military. Another example is the administration's dogged insistence on a gender-neutral, politically correct fighting force. A new book, "The Kinder, Gentler Military" by Stephanie Gutmann, illustrates this problem.

Journalist Kate O'Beirne, reviewing the book in the conservative Washington Monthly, writes that "Scenes from our sexually integrated armed forces would make a sobering trailer to Steven Spielberg's graphic depiction of the horrors of combat in 'Saving Private Ryan.' Yesterday's soldiers worried about winning wars, while today's recruits spend much of their time battling human nature."

After traveling to Army bases and Navy ships for a recruit's view of training and deployment, Ms. Gutmann concluded that "the military is in a state of crisis" and that "sexual integration ('G.I. Jane' notwithstanding) has taken a ruinous toll on morale and readiness, which the Pentagon refuses to acknowledge."

She reported that coed basic training has required elimination of the kind of physical challenges "that might hurt the self-esteem of slower, weaker women." Basic training is now designed to "build confidence." It sounds like some kind of New Age sensitivity training rather than preparation for combat.

And so it goes in our new, politically correct armed forces. Ms. Gutmann questioned whether male officers would willingly order female soldiers and sailors into combat, noting that former Air Force chief of staff Gen. Merrill McPeak was forced to apologize after he said he didn't think "old men should order young women into combat." "To become sexually integrated, the military has become inhospitable to such honorable men," she wrote.

When military leaders are asked to explain their current recruitment and retention problems, they invariably cite factors outside their control, like the booming civilian economy. But in a recent Navy Times survey, 50 percent of enlisted respondents and 54 percent of officers who were planning to leave the service cited other factors, such as "a change in the culture."

As Ms. O'Beirne observed, "To achieve combat integration, it (the military) must dismantle the warrior culture." That's a real shame, and dangerous too.

Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.