The 'new mission'

     In a report circulated in draft form in Washington last week, the Pentagon sketches out a "strategic blueprint" for the U.S. military which compensates for the shortage of real enemies in the post-Cold War world by emphasizing an expanding noncombat role.
      Now, obviously, many men and women in the armed forces complete exemplary careers without facing the necessity of firing shots in anger.
      But what's being discussed here is an expansion of a policy that now spends $3 billion per year -- and ties up as many as 20,000 troops -- guarding health clinics and food shipments in foreign mudholes.
      This is a classic case of "mission creep." If we face less risk of a major war in the near future, the armed forces should be down-sized, and the taxpayers allowed to use the money "growing" the civilian economy which is any nation's real strength.
      Yes, a few combat units must be kept equipped and trained. But the emphasis there should still be on "combat." Once baby-sitting becomes any unit's major role, it will train to baby-sit, equip to baby-sit, and promote those who do best at baby-sitting, weeding out the kind of misfit who still insists on taking long, unpleasant hikes in the rain, and then checking to see if everyone's rifle still works.
      Heaven help us.