Reckless Disregard
How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our
Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security
By Robert Patterson
Regnery Publishing
HC, 272 pgs. US$27.95/C$39.95
ISBN: 0-8952-6086-7

Choosing the right general for the war

By Steven Martinovich
web posted August 9, 2004

It is not an exaggeration to argue that this November's
presidential election is a referendum on competing visions on
how terrorism is to be dealt with. George W. Bush's preferred
solution -- a military response to terrorist attacks and imminent
threats -- has been demonstrated by two wars. The approach
advocated by the Democrats and John Kerry, a return to the law
enforcement days of the Clinton-era, represents a radical
departure from current policy.

It also promises to make the United States an easier target and
will send a signal of weakness, argues Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz"
Patterson (Ret.), author of Reckless Disregard: How Liberal
Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and
Jeopardize Our Security. The Democrats have not had a
responsible and coherent national security policy for decades, he
states, and Kerry continues in the tradition of Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton.

"The Democrats' record is clear and unmistakable: from the
fiasco of John F. Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pugs to
Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson's disastrously managed
intervention in Vietnam; from the humiliating Iranian hostage crisis
during the administration of Jimmy Carter to the botched rescue
attempt at Desert One; from President Clinton's spasmodic and
pointless interventions in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia, to
the litany of terrorist attacks against which he ordered no
effective response."

Patterson argues that since the liberal wing took control over the
Democratic Party in the early 1970s it has systematically tried to
gut America's military and rejected the nation's founding
principles and values when it comes to national security policy.
He writes that Democrats have made social issues their
overwhelming priority and alternately view the military as either a
roadblock to social change, a testing ground for new theories or
a tool to export them abroad. Rather than ask how a mission
advances American interests, he charges that Democrats simply
throw bodies at the latest crisis du jour, even while heavily
cutting the size of the military during the 1990s.

That irresponsibility reached its crescendo during the Clinton era,
says Patterson. The United States, its citizens and its interests
were repeatedly struck by al-Qaida and yet little was done to
respond. Clinton, who Patterson served as an aide to,
unintentionally sent the message that the U.S. had no stomach to
fight and when challenged would rather pull stakes -- as it did in
Somalia -- than answer blow for blow. Terrorist groups openly
declared their intentions and began gaining operational
capabilities to deliver on their promises but the Clinton
administration preferred dealing with the problem with law
enforcement resources.

Although Patterson's wider target is the Democratic Party, there
is no mistaking that Reckless Disregard is primarily aimed at
Kerry, whom he denounces repeatedly and in the strongest
terms. Speaking plainly, Patterson attacks virtually every aspect
of Kerry's career, from his service in Vietnam -- which he tried
to avoid by seeking a deferment to study in France -- to his
actions as a senator. Patterson declares that since returning from
Vietnam, Kerry's agenda has essentially been to weaken the
U.S. military and rely on international law and non-violent
options to respond to threats.

"John Kerry's anti-military history and senatorial voting record
make him the obvious heir to the George McGovern tradition in
the Democratic Party. ... He has repeatedly and consistently
opposed the very weapon systems that our men and women in
uniform are relying on today to fight and win the war on
terrorism. If Kerry had been our president, what would our
military have fought with in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and
in Iraq? Slingshots and tin cans connected with strings?"

Although Patterson's rhetoric can be overheated at times, he
raises a myriad of points about Kerry, his record and the
Democratic Party that few in the media seem interested in
investigating. Kerry, for example, has repeatedly brought up his
military service as one reason for his fitness to command yet the
tough questions about that service and his conduct upon his
return seem to be of little interest to most in the fourth estate.
Equally, one might wonder why his vague national security
proposals haven't been more vigorously challenged considering
they represent a fundamental shift in course from the current
administration's policies.
 
Reckless Disregard is a commendable effort to ask these and
many other questions, ones that at some point before November
must be answered. It's not enough for Kerry and the Democrats
to be opposed to the Bush Doctrine and the president's war on
terrorism; they must also explain why what they are for will work
better. If anything, Reckless Disregard spotlights that this may be
the most important American election in decades and how vital it
is for Americans to know where both sides stand. If Patterson's
judgments are correct, clearly one of the parties is demonstrably
unfit for the arduous journey that lies ahead.

Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com