By Stephanie Salter
The Tribune-Star
February 26, 2008 08:34 pm
—
Who said this and when?
“Our military is without peer, but it is not without problems … even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness.”
Who said this and when?
“ … Something has to give, and it’s giving. Resources are over-stretched. Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life … This administration wants things both ways: To command great forces, without supporting them. To launch today’s new causes, with little thought of tomorrow’s consequences.”
And who said this and when?
“… The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, ‘What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?’ … We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.”
Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? Dennis Kucinich? All of the above last year on the campaign trail? Nancy Pelosi after Democrats won a majority in the House?
No. The answer is the same for all questions: George W. Bush, Sept. 23, 1999.
It was quite a speech the Republican candidate for president gave at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C., that day. To read through it eight years later — with nearly 4,000 U.S. troops dead, a minimum of 82,000 Iraqi civilians dead, and more than $600 billion spent on an open-ended, unclear mission to bring peace to warring parties — is at once sobering and disorienting.
Many of us would have missed this supremely ironic journey back in time were it not for a recent essay by Michael Singer, the foreign policy adviser to John Edwards’ abandoned presidential campaign.
In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post last weekend, Singer mentioned Bush’s Citadel speech to illustrate the importance of candidates’ statements on foreign policy.
“Often, major policy proposals are road maps to what the candidates actually do once elected,” Singer wrote.
Singer’s larger message was a rebuke of — and warning to — the U.S. mainstream news media. During 10 months in which Edwards delivered several “major foreign policy addresses,” the reaction from nearly all traditional media (especially electronic) was a “big yawn,” Singer said. So, too, for Clinton and Obama, who also have laid out many aspects of their planned international policies.
“In every instance, the mainstream media were almost completely AWOL in providing thoughtful, analytical coverage,” Singer charged, citing speech after speech by all three leading Democratic contenders that were routinely ignored.
The few compare-and-contrast stories Singer said he did see “tended only to compare the candidates’ foreign policy advisers, with the flavor of a fantasy baseball article in Sports Illustrated.”
Given what has transpired in journalism during the past decade, Singer’s accusations ring true. Celebrity stories rule and most newsrooms have been bottom-lined out of the “luxury” of regular investigative and analytical reporting. (Another column for another day.)
So all we really have of substantial foreign policy observation is in hindsight. A review of Bush’s 1999 address certainly won’t change what has occurred (or didn’t occur), but it provides fascinating reading and a cautionary tale for candidates and voters, alike.
The speech is available on several Internet sites, including Citadel.edu. As Singer noted, the address “accurately portended” Bush’s “most provocative policies as president, from ‘transforming’ our armed forces through technology and lighter brigades, to disengaging from the Clinton administration’s diplomatic commitments.”
But the speech also pledged a variety of Bush administration courses that — as previous quoted passages attest — weren’t just altered after 9/11, they were junked or turned 180 degrees. More ironic excerpts are below. For full effect, pause between each and reflect.
• “A voluntary military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.”
• “The long-standing commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression.”
• “I will replace diffuse commitments with focused ones. I will replace uncertain missions with well-defined objectives. This will preserve the resources of American power and public will.”
• “The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of our commitment to allies and friends.”
• “Nothing would be better for morale than clarity and focus from the commander in chief.”
• “Let me be clear. Our first line of defense is a simple message: Every group or nation must know, if they sponsor such [terrorist] attacks, our response will be devastating.”
• “We will defend the American homeland by strengthening our intelligence community — focusing on human intelligence and the early detection of terrorist operations both here and abroad.”
• “The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our terms.”
• “In the world of our fathers, we have seen how America should conduct itself. We have seen leaders who fought a world war and organized the peace. We have seen power exercised without swagger and influence displayed without bluster. We have seen the modesty of true strength, the humility of real greatness. We have seen American power tempered by American character …”
• “Now comes our time of testing. Our measure is taken, not only by what we have and use, but what we build and leave behind. And nothing this generation could ever build will matter more than the means to defend our nation and extend our peace.”
Stephanie Salter can be reached at (812) 231-4229 or stephanie.salter@tribstar.com.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.