Next commander-in-chief must establish military vision

One of the major issues of this election cycle has been the state of the military. The Republicans decry the use, abuse and neglect of our armed forces by the Clinton administration, while the Democrats argue that nothing is wrong with the military. Aside from the stagnation of pay and procurement, the main talking point for both sides is about the military as an extension of foreign policy. In a post-Cold War world, what do we do with the largest, most powerful military that has ever existed? What is our grand vision for the military and foreign policy?

The Clinton administration's explicit answer has been to have no vision at all. The world is a more complicated place, it says, and we can't divide countries into those fighting for Truth and Justice, and those that are minions of the Evil Empire.

While this is true, the past eight years have seen a distinct lack of vision or overarching plan for the American military overseas. We are never quite sure when we should be involved in a conflict. When we do, we don't know what to do, what our goals are or even necessarily why we're doing it. Though this is not a fault specifically of the Clinton administration, recent foreign policy provides more than its share of examples of what not to do in a military intervention.

Indecision and a lack of serious commitment are major features that often cripple current U.S. foreign policy. Though President Clinton today feels terrible about the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered in Rwanda, the fact is that the United States stood by and waved its arms impotently while people died. The coup leaders in Haiti defied the United States for many months before Clinton finally decided to send in the 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions. The bombing campaign in Kosovo dragged on for 78 timidly escalating days until Slobodan Milosevic finally capitulated at the threat of a ground invasion. U.S. policy toward Iraq is literally in a holding pattern as U.S. and British planes police the no-fly zones with no goal in mind other than destroying any radar station that bleeps.

While American lives are undoubtedly important, shying away from placing American soldiers in harm's way has hurt the morale of the military. It raises the question: Why do we intervene in certain places anyway if we are unwilling to risk the sacrifice of American lives? In Somalia, we practically withdrew from the country when a group of Rangers was ambushed by armed thugs.

In Kosovo, airplanes were forbidden from flying lower than three miles above the ground. This rule lead to inaccurate bombing runs, ineffective missions and tight-lipped fury from Air Force generals who knew that this was the last thing to do if we wanted to win the war using air power. Military interventions in the past eight years have either failed, or succeeded in spite of themselves.

Perhaps the most important question is why we intervene in any place. What is our goal? If it is simply to stop genocide, why do we intervene in some places, like Kosovo, but not others, like Rwanda and Laos? If it is to protect democracy, why not come out and say it? What should the military be doing exactly? Is it the only institution that can accomplish our goals?

While many think that nation-building, policing and humanitarian missions are proper jobs for the military, these are not the reasons many recruits signed up. For instance, people question the appropriateness of the military's policing in Kosovo every time another case of brutality arises. There is a reason the military is not allowed to serve as the police force in America.

The next president will have to wrestle with the answers to these problems. A continuation of Clinton policy will not work, but neither will neo-isolationism. This is not a question of Democratic or Republican policies. America needs a definitive role in the world.

The world is a confusing place, but it's been 10 years since the end of the Cold War. That is too long to wait for a long-range strategic plan, whatever the conditions. If we are to intervene in a crisis, be it in a Third World backwater, or in a major nation gone horribly awry, we need clear guidelines for why we are intervening, how we intend to win and what our ultimate goal is. The world cannot afford to wait much longer for organized and confident U.S. leadership. Justin Hastings is a Wilson School major from Bedford, Mass. He can be reached at justinh@princeton.edu.