< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
How important is military experience for our commander-in-chief? George Bush is a war hero, whereas Bill Clinton dodged the Vietnam draft. If we follow GOP logic, then Bush will spend more on defense.
That sounds plausible, but history reveals bloated military budgets under presidents who lacked military experience, while combat veterans kept the military under control.
Consider Abraham Lincoln, who enlisted in the Black Hawk War of 1822 in order to improve his political prospects. However, he never faced hostile fire and was twice court-martialled.
Thus Lincoln had no real military experience. So he
easily succumbed to the clamors of his generals: more
patience for the condescending McClellan, who called
Lincoln a well-meaning baboon
; more materiel for the
incompetent Burnside and the scheming Hooker; more men for
Butcher Grant. Lincoln could seldom say no to an
officer.
Contrast that to Grant, who did not share Lincoln's respect for the wisdom of general officers. The army almost withered away during the Grant administration.
More recently, there's Harry Truman, who commanded an artillery company at the front in the War to End All Wars. Truman thus knew the difference between military necessity and military posturing, and he sacked Douglas MacArthur.
Dwight Eisenhower, a career officer, likewise knew the
difference between national security and a blank check for
the Pentagon; he pulled out of Korea, cut defense spending
and warned of the military-industrial complex.
John Kennedy had real military experience. He watched defense spending closely and kept his generals on a tight leash; he even cashiered several of them.
Lyndon Johnson's heroic service during World War II was a fabrication; he had no real military experience. And so Johnson was willing to wreck his cherished Great Society in order to give his generals just about anything they wanted.
Ronald Reagan's military service consisted of making propaganda and training films. Doubtless he served his country thereby, but this meant that Reagan had no first-hand knowledge of military matters during his tenure as commander-in-chief. So he gave the Pentagon the biggest blank check in history -- more than a trillion dollars.
Why is this so? When a president has no personal knowledge of a subject, he must trust his advisors. In military matters, his advisors are uniformed bureaucrats who always want more guns, tanks, planes, bombs, ships, manpower, etc. Like all bureaucrats, they covet bigger budgets, and unlike other bureaucrats, they can claim that national survival is at stake.
Under George Bush, who must have acquired a junior officer's skepticism about pronouncements from the brass, the American military has shrunk, and we don't hear about $600 coffee pots and $2,000 toilet seats.
Even though the Democratic platform calls for defense cuts, Bill Clinton would most likely hearken unto the pleas of the Pentagon. Unlike Bush, he wouldn't know any better. He'd believe a general who said the $31 billion Porkbarrel Crossbow Project was essential to national survival.
So there's an excellent campaign point for George Bush -- he's better able to control defense spending. But does he use it? No. Out on the stump, he predicts devastating defense cutbacks under a Clinton regime, although if history is any guide, the defense budget and associated waste would soar to record levels with a non-veteran in the White House.
Apparently his military experience doesn't keep our commander-in-chief from being his own worst enemy.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >