Americans want to believe
that their commander-in-chief would never put young men and women at risk unless
it advances our national security. But with a president whose military missions
seem to coincide with political troubles, this becomes difficult.
After repeated threats,
President Clinton, along with our NATO allies, authorized air strikes on
Yugoslavia. The goal: Put a stop to the "ethnic cleansing" conducted
against ethnic Albanians by Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton called
the mission a "moral imperative." But one must ask, "Why now? Why
there? What next? And, why us?"
After all, over a million
have died in "ethnic cleansing" in Africa, whether in Rwanda, Burundi,
the Sudan, or the Congo Republic. Turkey stands accused of "ethnically
cleansing" Kurds, and ethnic fighting continues in Indonesia. Currently,
Planet Earth features 61 wars, some of which could easily meet the definition of
"ethnic cleansing."
Americans want to believe the
President when he says he thought long and hard about whether intervention in
Kosovo furthers our national security objective. But many of us feel
uncomfortable. After all, the President managed to avoid military service during
the Vietnam era, even though he received an induction notice. The young Bill
Clinton considered Vietnam a civil war in which this country had no proper role.
Clinton even participated in anti-Vietnam "teach-ins." Times change.
People grow. But one can easily argue against Kosovo for the same reasons
Clinton gave for opposing the war in Vietnam.
Consider this exchange with
press secretary Joe Lockhart days after the air strikes began:
Reporter: "On the
President’s address to the nation, I wonder if you could answer a question
faxed to us by Marine Corps Force Recon veteran of Vietnam where he was
concerned about the President’s saying that the bombing of the Serbs was the
moral thing to do. And his question was, ‘Where was the President’s moral
butt, when innocent victims were being slaughtered by the Viet Cong and where
591 other young men from Arkansas lost their lives?’"
Joe Lockhart: "Next
question."
Perhaps this is coincidence.
But the President and Vice-President face serious questions concerning security
lapses that enabled top secret information to end up in the hands of the
Chinese. Did illegal campaign contributions from Chinese operatives cause the
government to lower its guard against Chinese espionage? Many military experts
say the transfer of military technology to the Chinese saved them fifteen years
while endangering the security of this country. The media and pundits began to
raise serious questions about "Chinagate," when suddenly bombs fell in
Kosovo.
And like it or not, the
President’s character continues to dog him as commander-in-chief. Many see a
double standard in accountability for Clinton’s conduct versus accountability
for others.
A recent example. The Toronto
Blue Jays manager Tim Johnson just got fired. Johnson, a military veteran, had
told his players that he faced combat in Vietnam and that, while there, he shot
a young girl. Turns out, Johnson taught mortar training, but never saw combat,
let alone killed anybody. Johnson’s pitching coach called him a
"liar," and the manager later apologized to his players.
Toronto management denies
Johnson’s firing resulted from the lie about Vietnam, but the team’s general
manager admitted that the controversy "wasn’t going to fade into the
background as quickly as I hoped. It became a distraction." The lie had
consequences.
Another example. The Navy
just relieved Rear Admiral Paul Scott Semko of his duties following an
allegation of adultery. An investigation concluded that Semko had had an
adulterous affair with a civilian, and that he lied about it to investigators.
The Navy reprimanded Scott for violating Article 133 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice prohibiting "conduct unbecoming an officer." Again,
consequences.
Many Clinton critics believe
him likely guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, and that he simply
cannot be trusted. If not, why should we believe him when he says he’s acting
in our national interest?
At a recent press conference,
someone asked the President whether his legacy will be about lying. The
President said that his record contains "hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds" of instances where he told the truth. Fine. We hope the President
truly believes that this Kosovo mission advances our national security. We hope
that the President did not commit troops to change the subject from "Chinagate."
We hope that the other instances of military action coinciding with political
troubles were simply coincidences. We hope that the President’s probable lies
to the grand jury have not compromised his credibility as commander-in-chief.
And we hope that the
President’s true Kosovo mission is not about turning a
"legacy...about lying" into a legacy about action. We hope. v