There's no

doubt that George Bush's choice of military readiness as

a campaign issue is a substantive one.

But whether

it will help him is another question altogether.

Let's take

a very brief trip through recent history.

Starting

point: the end of the Vietnam era. The nation was

disillusioned, the budget was exhausted and the military

was disheartened.

We had sent

our troops into battle with one arm tied behind their

backs, and although history books don't record it that

way, we had lost a war.

For the

next decade, our military was so neglected that, when we

tried to mount a rescue mission in Iran, we couldn't even

get our helicopters off the ground.

Ronald

Reagan was elected and he set about restoring our

mlitary's strength, and its pride. It cost a ton of

money. Restoring something that's been neglected always

costs far more than maintaining it.

But restore

it we did. Then we sent our troops into battle in the

deserts of Kuwait and won probably the most one-sided

victory in the history of warfare, with the possible

exception of Carthage.

Next we

elected Bill Clinton, who promptly set about dismantling

our newly restored military.

You want

proof? Well, it's hard to come by, but not impossible.

It's hard to come by for a couple of reasons.

First, in

terms of strategy, the folks in the military don't want

to give out too much information on how many people and

how much equipment we have at various locations. Saddam

watches CNN too, you know.

Second, the

folks in the military work for the commander in chief,

and releasing information or saying things publicly that

make the commander in chief look bad is not considered

the best career move.

But the

budget is there for all to see.

Not that

the military is a sacred cow. The budget during the

Reagan years was necessarily inflated because of the need

for restoration. It follows that once restoration was

complete, the budget would drop, and it did during the

Bush Administration.

Then the

Clinton Administration knocked it down by about 30

percent more. In 1993 we had about 780,000 people in

uniform. In 2000 we have about 480,000.

Along with

personnel, Clinton cut similar numbers of planes, ships,

tanks, weapons... procurement of new equipment and

research/development were slashed while more money was

put into spare parts to keep the now-aging equipment

operating.

The

explanation for this was that the modern military is

changing, slimming down for brief engagements in hot

spots around the world rather than bulking up for the big

war with the superpower that most people don't believe

will ever happen.

The

philosophy is not totally unsound, except it doesn't take

into account a commander in chief who triples the number

of hot spots he thinks it necessary to send troops to.

Clinton has engaged our troops in 48 missions as of 1999,

costing about $30 billion.

What

happens when you increase the number of missions and

decrease the size of the force is that people have to

spend more and more time on foreign soil and morale

drops. Then you have fewer people still.

And that's

exactly what has happened. Our armed forces during the

late `90s have failed to make their recruitment goals for

the first time since the awful `70s. This year, 2000,

recruitment goals have been met.

How, you

ask? Could it be they've lowered the standards? I think

it a safe bet to assume exactly that.

What's

worse is that highly experienced people in the middle

officer ranks are quitting, which tells me a lot. If

you're a captain or a major, that tells me you made a

decision a long time ago to make the military your

career. So why would you quit?

Consider

the words of Capt. Justin P. D. Wilcox, U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Vienna, Va., in USA Today Sept. 5, after

the captain decided to call it quits.

"My

decision to leave the Army stems from my refusal to live

the `readiness lie' portrayed by the nation's top

leaders. In the age of `do more with less,' the most

frequent topic of discussion for today's Army junior

officer is the decision to leave the military...

"For

two years I participated in the unit-readiness report for

my battalion as the project officer for the report and

the head of battalion maintenance. During the past year,

maintenance or personnel issues prevented achievement of

top readiness ratings. Excellence is no longer the

standard. The pursuit of mediocrity has become the norm.

When will a general officer finally lay his stars on the

table and stand up to the current administration for his

soldiers? ...

"I

realized that in the future I could be responsible for

the deaths of too many men who could have been saved by

proper training. I was not prepared to sacrifice good

men, knowing that their deaths could have been avoided. I

could not in good conscience continue to live the lie of

our current readiness."