For the Defense . . .

William Kristol
The Washington Post
August 31, 2000

If all you need is love, the Democrats are winning. Al Gore loves his wife (viz., The Kiss). Joe Lieberman loves people of faith, and people of no faith (viz., "Let us reach out together to those who may neither believe nor observe and reassure them . . . that our mission is . . . one of love.") And Bill Clinton loves himself (no viz. necessary).

How do Republicans fight back? They could make the case for tough love, contrasting its benefits with the soft and softening affection of Democrats. They could remind Americans of the dishonor brought on the presidency by the loving and lovable Bill Clinton. Above all, Republicans could say that, in politics, love is not all you need.

So what's left? War. Or at least "peace through strength." This theme has traditionally served the GOP well. After all, in every presidential election a Republican has won in modern times, foreign and defense policy has been a big issue, and the Republican candidate has stood for a stronger and more assertive America than the Democrat. There was a nod to this heritage at the convention in Philadelphia, where the highlighted speakers the first three nights were a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a war hero and a former secretary of defense. What's more, on Nov. 19 of last year, at the Reagan Library, George W. Bush had given a major speech that was the clearest commitment by a politician in a decade to a foreign policy of American strength, confidence and global leadership.

But more recently, the Bush campaign's trumpets have sounded an uncertain call. The main foreign policy speech at the convention was by Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. And her main applause line--"America's armed forces are not a global police force, they are not the world's 911"--was closer to the spirit of George McGovern than Ronald Reagan. Bush's own speech raised the issue of military readiness, but he managed to find, in a sea of compelling evidence on his side, a claim (that two divisions of the Army were not ready for duty) sufficiently problematic that it opened him up to criticism.

Bush returned to the question of military strength in a speech last week to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But there, in the midst of a sound critique of the excessive cuts in defense spending over the past eight years, he could not resist suggesting he would withdraw U.S. troops from places like Bosnia and Kosovo, and committing to a review of U.S. troop commitments in "dozens of countries." The first would be a devastating abdication of U.S. leadership in NATO for the sake of piddling savings. The second implies that further global retrenchment, and the weakening of our commitment to friends and allies around the world, would be likely in a Bush administration.

Meanwhile, in interviews, Condoleezza Rice has basically expressed agreement with Bill Clinton's China policy, and Dick Cheney with Clinton's Iraq policy. Missile defense has virtually disappeared as a campaign theme. And vague promises of a Bush military buildup are unaccompanied by specific numbers or an explanation of the purpose of a larger and stronger military.

Yesterday, Dick Cheney addressed the question of military readiness again, at considerable length, and with much good sense. He did say that the issue of defense (and, presumably, of foreign policy in general) should be "front and center" in this campaign. But Cheney never really addressed the obvious question: Yes, the military should be more ready. But ready for what? And Cheney again suggested that the problem is in large part that we are over-committed in the world.

We're not. In fact, "the vacuum left by America's retreat would invite challenges to our power. And the result, in the long run, would be a stagnant America and a savage world. . . . I have no intention of betraying American interests, American obligations and American honor." That was George W. Bush last Nov. 19. Notice his concern was not just for foreign policy, narrowly understood. Bush rightly worried about "a stagnant America" and "American honor."

The defense debate is more than a defense debate. If Bush and Cheney are unwilling to make the defense and foreign policy case in terms of American global leadership and, yes, American honor and greatness, they won't win it. And if they don't win it, they're unlikely to win the election.

The writer is editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard.