Jewish World Review March 12, 2001 / 17 Adar, 5761
Missiles, berets, morale and diplomacy
THREE articles concerning the Bush administration's approach to various defense and foreign policy issues caught my attention as I scanned the front page of the Washington Times (online) Thursday morning.
Reading them reaffirmed my confidence in President Bush as a strong commander in chief with an appreciation for the indispensability of a powerful and spirited military. He is demonstrating a firmness in foreign affairs centered on jealously safeguarding the strategic interests of the United States.
What a blessing that our foreign policy levers are no longer being pulled by Bush's military-loathing predecessor, who always seemed to be overwhelmed with a crippling aimlessness garnished with any number of personal, ulterior motives -- from wag the dog to legacy building.
Bush turned some heads when he took issue with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's strategy to ease tensions with North Korea. Bush recognized that it would be foolhardy and irresponsible to cement an agreement with North Korea involving its commitment to reduce missiles without ensuring that the terms of the agreement could be verified.
"But we want to make sure that their ability to develop and spread weapons of mass destruction was, in fact, stopped ... and that we could verify that in fact they had stopped it," said Bush.
Bush understands that Communist dictatorships such as North Korea cannot be trusted and specialize in exploiting weakness and appeasement. So he is in no hurry for the United States to resume negotiations with its leader, Kim Jong-il. This represents a dramatic departure from President Clinton's mad scramble to patch together a reckless missile deal with North Korea at the twilight of his presidency.
Moving on, the Times informs us that Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress that President Bush has re-instituted a hard-line policy with Iraq, demanding that U.N. inspectors be allowed to re-enter the country to search for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The Clinton administration's abandonment of this critical policy is inexplicable and unforgivable, but not irreversible. Hopefully, Bush has just reversed it.
Finally, the Times reports that Bush has asked the Pentagon to review an Army decision to issue the special black berets, previously reserved to elite soldiers, to all troops.
Last fall, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki announced his intention to implement this policy in order to boost morale and stimulate recruitment. Bush could have easily sidestepped this flap by saying it was below his pay grade as commander in chief. But wisely, his antenna went up when he heard of the complaints of disgruntled Rangers, who were outraged at this inane, politically correct, post-Modern policy of fostering mediocrity and punishing achievement.
What makes Gen. Shinseki believe that potential recruits will be enticed by the prospect of donning a beret that any and every buck private can wear simply by undergoing the rigorous ordeal of signing enlistment papers and getting a recruitment bonus? He thinks this will boost morale?
The general's wrongheaded plan does violence to the pursuit of excellence, which is essential to the military, by promoting a something-for-nothing mentality. What about the morale of those who earned the right to wear this cap? Has the general no reservations about this obscene dilution of a symbol of grit and courage merited by the toil and sweat of our nation's finest combat soldiers? Why don't we just make everyone a general, too? The hat doesn't make the man; the man defines the hat.
Well, if the general didn't understand it before, he does now -- though he has given no indication that he will withdraw his order. The 7,000 member Special Forces Association has issued a statement strongly condemning the policy. Three former Rangers are marching 700 miles from Ranger headquarters at Fort Benning, Ga., to Washington to protest it. But for them it's far more than symbolism. They know that of all our institutions our armed forces must remain merit-driven.
President Bush is displaying a strong instinct for discriminating between matters that are completely delegable and those that need a dose of his attention, even if they may appear trivial on the surface. Morale is paramount for the military, and you don't strengthen it by undermining the pride and heritage of its fiercest warriors.
It's been eight years since we've had a president with a healthy reverence for the military and for his role as commander in chief and leader of the free world. It feels
David Limbaugh, a columnist and attorney apracticing in Cape
Girardeau, Mo., is the author of the just-released
exposť about corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice
Department, "Absolute Power." Send your comments to him by clicking here.
03/07/01: The GOP and race revisited
03/05/01: Dems and the ghost of 2002
02/28/01: Common threads in Clinton pardons
02/26/01: Clinton defenders should apologize
02/22/01: Clinton woos media as Bush governs
02/20/01: Liberal idealism: Where have all the flowers gone?
02/14/01: The Clintons and selective media outrage
02/12/01: Bush's tax cut challenge: A historical view
02/07/01: Democrats' Dubya dilemma
02/05/01: Dubya is confounding the media
01/29/01: The Teamsters, the DNC and the reformers
01/29/01: The Old Limey
01/25/01: Clintonís disgraceful departure
01/22/01: Ashcroft: Principle above self
01/17/01: Justice for Riady?
01/15/01: Ashcroft: A hill to die on
01/10/01: Returning to the supply side
01/08/01: Reasons for optimism
01/03/01: Bush's daunting challenges
12/28/00: Ashcroft: A triumph for the rule of law
12/26/00: A tinge of revenge?
12/20/00: GOP: Breaking the race barrier
12/18/00: Civility doesn't require surrender
12/13/00: Al Gore: Innocent victimizer
12/11/00: Judicial restraint and ordered liberty
12/06/00: The four years war
12/04/00: Debunking Gore myths
11/29/00: Defending the smaller principles
11/27/00: Albert O'Gore and the little people
11/22/00: Doing 'anything to win'
11/15/00: Enough is enough, Mr. Gore
11/13/00: Al Gore: Thy country or thyself?
11/08/00: Bill and Al: Your time is up
11/06/00:The impending Bush mandate
11/01/00: Can't stop thinkin' 'bout tomorrow
10/30/00: George: Give Gore the ball back
10/25/00: Mr. Gore: A few more questions
10/23/00: It's the big government, stupid
10/18/00: Gore's down, so will he panic?
10/16/00: We're fresh out of new Al Gores
10/11/00: Gore: Fuzzy math = dirty politics
10/10/00:Gore: Renaissance man or unbalanced?
10/04/00: Where have you been, Albert Jr.?
10/02/00: Clintonís fragmented presidency
09/27/00: Liberal media doth protest too much
09/25/00: AlGore: Turning dreams into nightmares
09/20/00: Something fishy's going on
09/18/00: It's the liberalism, stupid
09/13/00: An open letter to open-minded cynics
09/11/00: The virtues of going negative
09/06/00: On a mission for marriage
09/04/00: Al Gore's 'Trivial Pursuits'
08/30/00: Lieberman and the paradox of liberal 'tolerance'
08/28/00: A campaign divided against itself
08/23/00: Al Gore's trickle-down populism
08/21/00: Prosperity without a clue
08/16/00: AlGore can run but he can't hide
08/14/00: When hate speech is OK
08/09/00: Bush: The pundits' enigma
08/07/00: GOP convention: Live or Memorex?
08/02/00: The first attack dog
07/31/00: The Cheney taint?
07/26/00: The anti-gun bogeyman
07/24/00: The raging culture war
07/19/00: Is Hillary 'Good for the Jews'?
07/17/00: How dare you, George?
07/12/00: Jacoby's raw deal
07/10/00: The perplexities of liberalism
07/05/00: Big Al and big oil
07/03/00: Partial-birth and total death
06/28/00: Some questions for you, Mr. Gore
06/26/00: Supreme Court assaults religious freedom
06/21/00: Waco: We are the jury
06/19/00: "Outrage" just doesn't quite cut it anymore!
06/14/00: Al Gore: Government's best friend
06/12/00: Say goodbye to medical privacy
06/07/00: Elian: Whose hands were tied?
06/05/00: Who, which, what is the real Al Gore?
06/01/00: Legacy-building idea for Clinton
05/30/00: Clinton: Above the law or not?
05/24/00: Not so fast, Hillary
05/22/00: Gore's risky, fear-mongering schemes
05/17/00: Can Bush risk pro-choice running mate?
05/15/00: Right to privacy, Clinton-style
05/10/00: Patrick Kennedy and his suit-happy fiddlers
05/08/00: Don't shoot Eddie Eagle
05/03/00: Congress caves to Clinton, again?
05/01/00: The resurrection of outrage
04/28/00: A picture of Bill Clinton's America
04/19/00: President Clinton: Teaching children responsibility
04/17/00: Elian, Marx and parental rights
04/12/00: Elian, freedom deserve a hearing
04/10/00:The fraying of America
04/05/00: Noonan: End Clintonism now
04/03/00: Bush: On going for the gold
03/27/00: Treaties, triggers, tobacco and tyrants
03/22/00: Media to Bush: Go left, young man
03/20/00: Stop the insanity
03/15/00: OK Al Gore: Let's go negative
03/13/00: Deifying of the center
03/08/00: The media, the establishment and the people
03/01/00: McCain's coalition-busting daggers in GOP's heart
02/28/00: Bush's silver lining in McMichigan
02/24/00: A conservative firewall, after all
02/22/00: Bush or four more of Clinton-Gore?
02/16/00: Substance trumps process
02/14/00: The campaign finance reform mirage
02/09/00: President McCain: End of the GOP as we know it?
02/07/00: From New Hampshire to South Carolina
02/02/00: SDI must fly
01/31/00: Veep gores Bradley
01/26/00: The issues gap
01/24/00: GOP: Exit, stage left
01/20/00: Nationalizing congressional elections
01/18/00: Do voters really prefer straight talk?
01/12/00: Media's McCain efforts may backfire
01/10/00: Conservative racism myth
01/05/00: Just one more year of Clintonian politics
12/27/99: Al Gore: Bullish on government
12/22/99: Bradley's full-court press
12/20/99: Bush: Rendering unto Caesar
12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?
© 2000, CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.