A duel on army preparedness in U.S.

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

WASHINGTON, AUG. 29. Though foreign policy is not going to make or break this Presidential election of November 7, the Republicans and the Democrats are trading charges on international and defence affairs. And one item that is on the top of the Grand Old Party's agenda is the state of the military.

The sum and substance of the GOP argument on the military is that the Clinton-Gore administration has brought the institution to such a state that it is weak and not ready to fulfil its mission even if the force is the best in the world. ``... the question in terms of readiness and morale, the problems with recruiting, problems with retention...the military is in trouble today,'' says the GOP vice-presidential candidate, Mr. Dick Cheney.

The former Defence Secretary in the Bush administration of the late 1980s argues that the military is in decline and that the Clinton administration has done little to reverse the trend.

And what has especially made Democrats angry is a campaign statement that depicts the Vice-President, Mr. Albert Gore, as ``AWOL'' (Absent Without Leave) on Veterans Issues. It is a serious offence in the military and is a highly sensitive word in the establishment.

The Democrats are hitting back and hard at the GOP charges saying that if there is any decline at all the seeds were sown during the time of the Bush administration when Mr. Cheney had agreed for cutbacks. To this, the response is that the U.S. had ``won'' the Cold War; there was the implosion of the Soviet Union; and that there was the consensus that it was time to downsize the force.

``Cheney already admitted that the military downsizing began under the Bush-Quayle-Cheney administration. So either Cheney doesn't know what he is talking about, or they can't get their story together on the military. I think it all shows that Bush is not ready to be commander-in-chief,'' said the spokesman of the Gore campaign.

And many senior Democratic law-makers have questioned Mr. Bush assertion that two full Army Divisions would have to report ``not ready for duty'' when called upon for service.

Besides the military preparedness, the larger challenges facing the U.S. on the foreign front in the 21st century will be in focus - an area that Mr. Bush is seen as most vulnerable. But for those Democrats who say that Mr. Bush lacks experience in foreign affairs, there are enough Conservatives who want to know how much expertise Mr. Bill Clinton had prior to coming to the White House.

Other areas of disagreement include Russia and China, both of which are increasingly critical of American foreign policy. Moscow has the National Missile Defence as its top concern; and Beijing too has expressed serious reservations. In fact, China says the American position on the NMD is linked to its own exports of nuclear technology and missiles to regimes including Pakistan.

The Republicans contend that Mr. Clinton should not take a decision on the NMD, however tentative this is going to be; he should leave it to his successor. Mr. Gore says he will follow a limited version of a system which will start off in Alaska with about 100 interceptors. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, favours a more robust system that will protect not only all states in the country but America's allies as well.

But what the Republicans have not said is how much the Missile Defence System is going to cost under their scheme of things and where the money is going to come from, especially when Mr. Bush talks about generous tax cuts as well over the next 10 years.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : The politics of water
Next     : Library that keeps a nation's conscience