Who Will Defend Our Armed Forces?

America’s founding fathers indirectly chose to vest our civilian president with commander-in-chief authority over all U.S. military services. Thus, today there is supposed to be an unbroken “chain of command” from the president to a civilian secretary of Defense, down through the ranks to the rawest recruit entering boot camp.

Elsewhere around the globe, chain of command sometimes becomes a chain of forced servitude for the benefit of uniformed commanders in chief. Fortunately in America, public will counterbalances the long-term possibility of any such imbalance in our civilian-led chain of command. At least it is supposed to.

Scanning news headlines these days reveals disconcerting lapses in our men and women in uniform at all ranks: adultery, aircraft crashes, dereliction of duty, drug dealing, fraternization, hazing, incompetence, insubordination, larceny, lying, negligence, rape and sodomy. Apparently some links in our command chain have been allowed to rust--or worse, break.

Lurid headlines about our troops may represent a telltale sum of pressures assaulting the services. All the while, America’s war-winning soldiers endure continuous downsizing of alarming proportions, and the end is not in sight. Unfortunately, the American public may not fully comprehend the danger in budget-driven forced reductions. When we are weak in the eyes of potential international adversaries, they can and will strike at our interests around the world. So: What are our military interests? And, who ultimately enunciates them to the international community?

President Clinton, commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for benchmarking military authority, morality and strength. Because military life is a calling strongly felt by some while totally ignored by others, the commander in chief must be heard above all other voices well before troops have to lay down their lives. Yet, day by day, U.S. military hegemony continues to dilute, while behind the scenes thousands of military folks are quietly and sometimes ungraciously shown out the back door.

Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) said: “War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. . . . The main lines along which military things progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continue through the war into the subsequent peace.” To achieve one’s political object in war is “to conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy.”

If America is forced to “conquer and destroy” during the course of hostile international events, how moral and strong will our uniformed services be? By law, the answer ultimately rests within the civilian White House bivouac of President Clinton. By conscience, however, the voting public must be faithful during the next election to the nation’s founding military paradigm from our first commander in chief: George Washington. His chain of command worked.