AMERICA CAN WIN
The Case for Military Reform
Gary Hart with William S. Lind
Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1986
301 pp., $17.95
Up until about forty years ago, Americans entrusted their national defense to a small group of military professionals in what was then less euphemistically called the Department of War. Presidents, cabinet members, and congressmen had little or no say in the development of military strategy and doctrine.
The reasons for such non-interest were simple. America's Founding Fathers kept the country's armed forces as small as was necessary to defend the homeland. They feared that a strong military would not only overtax the nascent Republic's resources but might also lead to military dictatorship. For over 150 years, America's geographic circumstances aided that design; potential enemies were an ocean away, giving the country plenty of time to mobilize to defend the patria. Even when World Wars I and II broke out, America rearmed at an almost leisurely pace yet still, when the time to fight came, sent troops into combat well prepared and supplied.
But in the past forty years all that has changed, for two reasons. First, the development of atomic weapons gives the Soviet Union the power to destroy the American homeland within hours. America's military must be continuously prepared to defend the country with the best men, equipment, and strategies available. Second, large numbers of American forces are now stationed abroad. American GIs stare down the powerful forces of communist regimes dedicated to the destruction of the free world. The communist forces are themselves well-armed, well-trained, and ready to exploit any weakness in the defense abilities of America and her allies. If the forces of tyranny attack tomorrow, there would be no time to correct mistakes.
The expansion of America's defense structure has, in turn, expanded the importance of formulating the right doctrines and strategies for the U.S. military. And in typical American fashion, anybody who has anything at all to say says it.
Now, this can be a bad thing. Too many politicians and advisers with too many ideas could inhibit the military's ability to do its job. Yet America's freewheeling defense debates do have an advantage: They make sure that all potential weaknesses can be questioned and that better strategies can be discussed.
The Military Reform Movement
One of the most important groups in this debate is what is called the "military reform movement." It centers on several congressmen but includes think-tank members, university professors, and even military officers. The movement itself is split into several different factions, in particular between liberals and conservatives (doves and hawks).
One of the reform movement's leading members (one of its dovish contingent) is Gary Hart, who, you may recall, ran for the Democratic party's presidential nomination in 1984, but finished second to Walter Mondale. When he leaves the Senate in January, Hart will
...
Read Full Article
|
