The notion that President Bill Clinton was a poor steward of the
armed forces has become so commonly accepted that it is now
often taken for granted—among moderates and independents as
well as Republicans such as George W. Bush, who made the charge
in the first place. The Clinton administration, so the thinking
goes, presided over an excessive downsizing of the U.S. military,
seriously weakening the magnificent fighting machine built by
Ronald Reagan and honed by George H.W. Bush. It frittered away
American power and left the country an object of derision to its
enemies, tempting them to misbehave.
This assessment, however, is wrong. The Clinton administration's
use of force (or lack thereof ) may be controversial, but the Clinton
Pentagon oversaw the most successful defense drawdown in U.S.
history—cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the
previous administration had planned while retaining a high state of
readiness and a strong global deterrence posture. It enacted a prescient
modernization program. And the military it helped produce achieved
impressive successes in Bosnia and Kosovo and, more significant, in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these victories were primarily due to
the remarkable dedication and skill of U.S. troops, credit is also owed
to Clinton's defense policy.
The Clinton defense team did not, however, do a good job of managing
military morale, taking too long to figure out how to distribute
a demanding workload fairly and sustainably across a smaller force.
As a consequence, U.S. troops became overworked and demoralized,
and many left the military or considered doing so. Although many of
these problems were largely repaired by the end of the decade, they
undoubtedly detract from Clinton's military achievements. But they do
not justify the overwhelmingly negative assessment of his defense record.
View Full Article (PDF—131kb). Get Adobe Acrobat Reader