ethnically diverse polity—the memoryrnof which inspires periodic calls for thernreintroduction of some form of “NationalrnService.”rnYet the heroic figures of that G.I. ofrnyesteryear—the Sergeant Yorks, the AudiernMurphys—has become all but irrelevant.rnGiven the challenges of maintainingrnorder in an unruly and restlessrnpost-Cold War wodd—and the UnitedrnStates position as a superpower that forrnnow faces no major threat to its securityrn—a large standing force of citizensoldiersrnis the last thing we need. Rather,rnthis is the time of the professional: therntough, disciplined, career-minded specialistrnin military affairs.rnNominally, the United States appearsrnto possess a military establishment wellrnsuited for the times. Suited except forrnone point: despite the continuing assertionsrnof the thoroughgoing professionalrncharacter of today’s force, no Americanrnpolitical leader will venture a definitionrnof professionalism appropriate for thernpost-Cold War era. Instead, all are eontentrnto rec’cle the language and imageryrnbarkening back to the days when globalrncrises required the dispatch of throngs ofrn”American boys” (Lyndon Johnson’srnterm) to distant lands.rnFor several generations, participationrnin such an enterprise marked a crucialrnrite of passage and a signifier of full citizenship.rnYet when their turn came in thern1960’s, the best and brightest of Mr.rnClinton’s generation shunned that rite.rnThey absolved themselves of any obligationrnto serve. Indeed, they derided thosernwho accepted it.rnThirty years later, now elevated to positionsrnof prominence, those who evadedrnservice now truckle and fawn to demonstraternthe depth of their regard for menrnin uniform. Whether to assuage theirrnconsciences, remedy past injustices, orrnjust cater to the folks back home, thernmotives hardly matter: the effect is tornsentimentalize “the troops” in a way thatrnsociety would never dream of sentimentalizingrnother professionals—the police,rnfirefighters—upon whom in extremis itrnmust rely.rnThe military itself is only too happy tornplay along. The moral leverage embeddedrnin “the troops”—manifested in arnsensitivity to casualties without precedentrnamong history’s major militaryrnpowers—provides the Pentagon withrnenormous political clout. Senior militaryrnleaders do not hesitate to exploit thatrnclout for their own purposes. They defleetrnor modify tasks not to their liking—rncontributing, for example, to the monthsrnof government hesitation and indecisionrnover Haiti and Bosnia. They pass off onrnothers the responsibility for failure—rnas was the case, for example, when LesrnAspin absorbed the blame for botchedrnoperations in Mogadishu. Indeed, thernsentimentalization of the American militaryrnconceals a second contradiction inrnpresent-day civil-military relations: at arntime when the officer corps proclaims itsrnprofessionalization, it has become morernhighly politicized than at any time in recentrnmemory.rnObsessed with safeguarding a reputationrnbuilt on Desert Storm and with protectingrnfrom further injury a psyche devastatedrnby Vietnam, the military hasrnample cause to pursue its own politicalrnagenda. While such behavior may notrnbe acceptable, it is to some extent understandable.rnThe real culprit lies not in thernPentagon but in a polity that does notrntake seriously—indeed does not acknowledgern—the imperative of definingrnthe prerogatives and obligations of arnprofessional military force in the newrncircumstances that exist following thernCold War.rnThis imperative transcends partisanrnpolitics, arguments over foreign policy,rnand the debate over specific controversiesrnsuch as Bosnia. Indeed, absent arncommonly accepted understanding ofrnthe risks inherent in being a soldier andrnthe role that Americans expect their militaryrnforces to play, coherent debate overrnpolicy becomes next to impossible.rnRather than questions of interests andrnstrategy commanding the attention theyrndeserve, cynical maneuvering—suchrnas positioning your political opponentrnto take the fall should American bloodrnbe shed abroad—takes precedence.rnNeither United States policy nor thernwell-being of American forces is servedrnas a result.rnFeel-good images of Mr. Clinton visitingrn”the troops” notwithstanding, fundamentalrnquestions relating to civil-militaryrnrelations demand attention. Thernobligation for addressing these questionsrnrests not with the military but with thernnation’s elected civilian leadership. Alas,rnit is an obligation that the present administrationrnwill continue to evade.rnA./. Bacevich is executive director of thernForeign Policy Institute at the Paul H.rnNitze School of Advanced InternationalrnStudies in Washington, D.C.rnPHILANTHROPYrnLiberal Charityrnby Thomas F. RoeserrnWhich is the main bastion of institutionalrnliberalism: governmentrnor the corporate boardroom, which in additionrnto its own leftist philanthropy alsornfunds multimillion-dollar foundations?rnWith a cutback in public spending possible,rndue to voter disenchantment, thernanswer may be the latter, for universitiesrnand special interest groups intent onrnspreading secularism and nihilism arernmore dependent than ever before on thernwet nurse of philanthropy.rnThanks to foundations like Rockefeller,rnFord, and Carnegie, along with thernJohn T. and Catherine D. MacArthurrnFoundation and a host of others, thesernuniversities and organizations with a leftistrnmission can operate without thernslightest need for modulation. As a formerrngovernment official, corporate executive,rnand ex-university lecturer, I can sorntestify. A recent study by the CapitalrnResearch Center in Washington, D.C,rnreveals the manv big-name companiesrnfunding left-liberal causes.rnCapital Research has audited thernphilanthropic contributions of the 250rnlargest American corporations. It discoveredrnthat more than $36 million wasrngranted in 1992 to more than 300 publicrnadvocacy groups. Moreover, for everyrndollar companies gave to organizationsrnsupporting limited government, they bestowedrn$3.42 to supporters of the leftrnthat advocate more intrusive governmentrnand social experimentation.rnPrime recipients of the donations arernprestigious universities that institutern”chairs” for the study of economics andrnpublic policies. More than one wellmeaningrndonor wishing to support freernmarket activities has seen his dollarsrnmisapplied to propagate an outdatedrnKeynesianism—or worse, perverted tornendorse a leftist elitism wearing the falsernwhiskers of “economic democracy.”rnIf pollution by government and bluernchip corporate philanthropy were the onlyrndangers to American culture, it wouldrnbe heartening, but liberalism streamsrnMAY 1996/41rnrnrn