About Rumsfeld and the Military

Another legacy of the Clinton Era

by Vincent Fiore
01/01/05

For all those folks demanding the head of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the hood of an unarmored Humvee, you may want to take a step back and look at recent history.

The troubles that beset the U.S. military, though unquestionably the strongest in recorded history when compared to other nations, was the work of President Clinton and a Congress that cared more for a piece of the “peace dividend” pie of the 1990s than they did in the readiness of the armed services.

Though you do not hear it said specifically from these self-appointed experts among the main stream media, Rumsfeld inherited this military. He did not create it. What he and President Bush have managed to change is the pride and duty that our service personnel feel when wearing the uniform of the United States.

Rumsfeld has also worked to transform this military into a quick response and multi-tasking operation that can respond to conflicts that arise. As he and the President have said, a military to match the dangers and threats of the 21st Century.

But did he deny armor to the troops in the field? Or does he withhold troops from the theatre of battle if they are needed? To believe this, one must be prepared to believe that Rumsfeld, and by extension President Bush, would be willing to sacrifice our soldiers needlessly.

As you think about that for a moment, here are a few reminders about just what was sacrificed during those “peace dividend” years when Bill Clinton was Commander In Chief:

In 1992, total active military personnel was 1, 913,000. By 2000, that number stood at 1,371,000, a 28% drop-off. Active U.S. Army divisions went from 14 to 10, a 29% drop. Marine personnel went from 191,000 to 171,000, a drop of 11%.

The U.S. Air Force experienced a 31% drop in its bomber squadrons, and active personnel of 28%--from 499,000 to 331,000.

The budget for the combined services, the only genuine cut enacted by Clinton and Congress, went from $327 billion in 1992, to $274 billion in 2000. That is a 16% drop, or $53 billion --- for armored Humvees, more troops, Kevlar vests, night vision goggles, chemical agent monitors, etc.

While blame goes around Washington faster than a bullet through a gun barrel, most of the angst about Rumsfeld stems from his efforts to change a military that, like our intelligence branches, finds itself entrenched in a cold war mentality. Through the 1990s, as the Clinton White House expanded social engineering and regarded the military budget as the slush fund to do it with, Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Chuck Hagel did little to raise a fuss. These “principled” and “courageous” Republicans, as the media refers to any inter-party squabbling between Republicans, are now all but calling for Rumsfeld to step down. Such “courage” from these three moderate senators who all served during the Clinton administration’s debauchery of the military is woefully obvious as to what it is: media approval-seeking, and in some cases, Presidential aspirations.

In the much-reported town hall meeting in Kuwait on December 8, Rumsfeld, in reply to the question that was planted with Spc. Thomas Wilson that has sparked the recent outcry for his removal, said: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Plainly, this was a swipe at the previous Administration's indifference and inept handling of the nation’s armed services. Rumsfeld’s predecessors, Defense Secretaries Les Aspin and William Cohen, did nothing of note during their tenure at DoD except to undo what eight years of the leadership of Ronald Reagan had done: give notice to America’s enemies that its armed forces stand in readiness to deter them.

Every war has its differences in the way it is conducted. One of the hallmarks of the American military machine is its ability to improvise, overcome, and adapt. The Iraq War is no different in this. What worked in previous conflicts may not suffice here, as with the unarmored Humvees that were so successful during the Gulf War in 1991. We now use unmanned aerial vehicles, like the Predator and Hunter drones to save the lives of our soldiers and kill our enemies.

But this is commonplace in war, and should even be expected. In Tunisia, North Africa in 1943, American forces, for the first time, faced the vaunted Panzer tank divisions of General Erwin Rommel, the most capable and feared commander of the Axis. After losing badly to Rommel, American troops had nicknamed their tanks “purple heart boxes,” because of the inadequacy of armor to protect the vehicles gas tanks. One piece of hot shrapnel would cause the tank to explode.

The same conditions prevailed in regard to the Army’s half-track vehicles. General Omar Bradley was said to have asked a soldier if the machine gun bullets pierced the armor. The soldier replied, “No sir. The bullets just pierce one side and rattle around a bit.”

Such brevity of a life-and-death situation in war only affirms the ability of our fighting forces to adapt as the situation warrants. So, too, must Washington and all its bureaucratic machinations.

Donald Rumsfeld has had to fight two wars and an entrenched Washington bureaucracy at the same time. He has been a dedicated public servant to the country for decades, and a true patriot. This political and media outcry is just so much generated noise over a condition that has greeted every major conflict ever fought by the U.S. Military, and that is in war, there will be the death of our own. To imply that Rumsfeld, and by extension, Bush, are deaf to the needs of our soldiers in the field is not only dishonorable at its root, but hateful at its core.

The McCains and Hagels of the Senate --- and their cheerleaders among the mainstream media --- may want to consider this the next time they open their mouths to promote only themselves and not what lies in the best interest of our fighting forces abroad.