by: F.R. Duplantier

"The American military is subject to civilian control, and we deeply believe in that principle," observes Marine Corps Reserve Major Daniel Rabil. "We also believe, as affirmed in the Nuremberg Trials, that servicemen are not bound to obey illegal orders. But what about orders given by a known criminal?" Rabil asks. "Should we trust in the integrity of directives given by a President who violates the same basic oath we take? Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his troops? The answer is no," the major responds, "for implicit in the voluntary oath that all servicemen take is the promise that they will receive honorable civilian leadership."

In a commentary published last month in the Washington Times, Major Rabil concedes that "Bill Clinton has never been the military's favorite president. Long before the Starr report," he recalls, "there was plenty of anecdotal evidence of this administration's contempt for the armed forces. Yes, Mr. Clinton was a lying draft dodger; yes, his staffers have been anti-military; and yes, he breezily ruins the careers of senior officers who speak up or say politically incorrect things. Meanwhile, servicemen are now in jail for sex crimes less egregious" than the President's.

Convinced that "Mr. Clinton and his supporters do not care in the least about the health of our armed forces," Rabil concludes that the President's "disingenuous feminist, homosexual, and racial activist friends regard the services as mere political props, useful only for showcasing petty identity group grievances." But the fact that "Clinton has weakened the services and fostered a corrosive anti-military culture" is not impeachable in and of itself, he concedes. "Then came the Paula Jones perjury and the ensuing Starr Report. . . . This is the President of the United States of America?" he asks in disbelief. "Should soldiers not feel belittled and worried by this? We deserve better."

Rabil charges that "Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his dysfunctional administration. What might his motives be in some future conflict?" he asks. "Blackmail? Cheap political payoffs? Or . . . simply the lazy blundering of an instinctively anti-American man? It is immoral," the major contends, "to impose such untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force."

Major Rabil concludes that the President's moral failings have done real damage to our armed forces. "The enduring goodness of the American military character over the past two centuries does not automatically derive from our nation's nutritional habits or from a good job benefits package," he observes. "This character must be developed and supported, or it will die. Already we are seeing declining enlistment and a 1970s-style disdain for military service, squandering the real progress made during the purposeful 1980s. Our military's heart and soul can survive lean budgets," Rabil declares, "but they cannot long survive in an America that would tolerate such a character as now occupies the Oval Office. . . ."