Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Hart’s ‘Minuteman’ isn’t a good military alternative

Monday, Sept. 28, 1998 | 11:21 a.m.

GARY HART is a charming person with an exceptional background in government and history. He is not the person Americans should seek out when determining military strategy and planning. I am happy he didn't make decisions that affected me in ground combat and I don't want him developing our military forces for future conflicts. These conclusions aren't reached because he didn't find it appropriate to serve on active duty when military age.

My conclusions have come from reading his book "The Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People." Hart's idea of having a citizen army at all times is exactly what we had during our Revolutionary War and, because of the draft, also to fight World War II. Between wars our country has always, very dangerously, let down its military guard and allowed our regular forces to deteriorate.

Hart recognizes our past errors and advocates a form of Universal Military Training, which Congress denied to President Harry Truman. This would have meant all of us, even a younger Gary Hart, would have had to serve a stint of active military duty. He wants this to be carried even further by keeping large numbers of the people in a big reserve army ready for a call to duty to supplement small regular forces.

Certainly, as the author points out, this would give a greater number of Americans a direct interest in how well trained and supplied our military would be. It would also encourage them to participate much more in matters involving foreign affairs. These are most worthy goals but won't necessarily be reached by following Hart's suggestions.

There's no doubt that our military reserve forces, especially the Army, need more training and have to be upgraded. In 1994, three years following the Gulf War, the General Accounting Office reported that "a 1991 Army Inspector General report estimated that as many as 8,000 Army reserve component personnel were found to be medically nondeployable upon arrival at mobilization stations. Even though all but 1,100 of these soldiers eventually deployed, the report noted that nondeployable soldiers disrupted the mobilization process. Medically nondeployable personnel caused units to undergo extensive efforts to replace nondeployable reservists with those that could be deployed. However, unit commanders told the Inspector General that as many permanently nondeployable reserve component personnel were identified and left at their home stations as those that were identified at mobilization stations. The report also noted that some soldiers who had coronary bypass surgery, cancer and amputations had not been identified at their home stations and reported to their mobilization station."

Also, the GAO report points out that, during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, many Army reserve personnel didn't have physical skills necessary to perform adequately. Very simply, their physical fitness tests are not geared to measure their ability to meet the physical demands which will be required of them performing their jobs in an operation.

Hart recognizes these problems and looks to Israel as an example of a small regular army with a large ready reserve to answer military challenges. The mentality of Israelis is entirely different from that of Americans. They live in a small country surrounded by larger enemies. It's a tough neighborhood where war affects every person and every person must respond to the threat. This isn't the world Americans experience day in and day out.

Allow me to add that during any time that there isn't an immediate threat to Israel, the civilian reservists aren't a happy group when reporting for an annual three- or four-week training period. During the past 12 years, I've watched the Israeli reservists come into camp for their training. Although we are there to help pick up the slack, we find many of them aren't enthusiastic about having left their jobs as bankers, bus drivers, farmers and clerks. I question how much good many of them get from their training period. Just imagine these same demands being made on millions of American civilians.

As a reader of Hart's presentation, I can't help but feel he still has more than a touch of negative feelings about our military forces. Although he tries to sell the reader on his method of producing a more effective military force with greater civilian involvement, he doesn't tell how this can be accomplished in the America of today.

"The Minuteman" is easy reading and has some good ideas. Hart concludes his work, "The twenty-first-century threats to America's security and continuity are not primarily military and therefore cannot be defeated by professional armies. They are cultural and will be answered, if at all, by national unity, which itself will be strengthened by citizen-soldiers and restoration of an army of the people."

Dream on, Gary, and when you awaken the real world will be ready to take advantage of an America willing to buy into your view of a military for the next century.