Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 17, 1992 TAG: 9203170373
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The Defense Department is drafting a thick statement of policy that would make Uncle Sam the global policeman - or, at least, give him first refusal on what, out of all the conflicts the world over, he considers his national-security concern.
The statement specifically disclaims any desire for a constabulary role. But it says that part of America's post-Cold War mission will be "convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."
America, in other words, will see to all that. We wouldn't want anyone else aspiring to a greater role! Say the Pentagon planners: "We will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations."
These people must have been sleeping through modern-history classes, especially New World Order 101. No question, the United States has emerged from the earthshaking events of the past couple years as the only superpower. Global responsibilities go with this, and America should not shirk them. President Bush is right about that; Pat Buchanan is wrong.
But it's a big jump to imply that the United States can now bestride the Earth, colossus-like - that it must, as the Pentagon draft says, "sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order."
Even if we could afford all the soldiers, guns, tanks, planes, etc., that would take - obviously we cannot - it is a bad idea.
In Asia, the United States is pre-eminent militarily. There, it would take only a relatively small investment to maintain our position, discourage mischief-makers and prevent a power vacuum that could destabilize the area.
In Europe, however, the time is ripe for regional security measures undertaken by European nations. Elsewhere, as in the Middle East, collective action should be encouraged, as President Bush understood in organizing Operation Desert Shield and Storm.
The United Nations, to everyone's benefit, is taking on an increasingly important and effective role as international mediator and policeman. And it is becoming ever clearer that the global struggle for power is primarily an economic, not a military, competition. Huge military budgets in the end failed the Soviets. They hurt us, too.
Given all this, one must wonder how this Pentagon paper - drafted in collaboration with various federal entities, including the White House - got so far before Bush disavowed it last week. More artful wording could better have disguised the implicit aim: to justify continued massive U.S. defense spending for the Bush administration's "base force" proposal of a 1.6-million-member military over the next five years, costing an extravagant $1.2 trillion.
There is collusion in Congress with such plans. The defense budget has become a giant public-works program supporting millions of jobs distributed among the nation's congressional districts.
To cash in the peace dividend, some workers and companies will have to be displaced, to be sure. And public funds will have to be spent for retraining and adjustment to alleviate hardship. But America can't afford to squander this opportunity to redirect defense dollars into civilian programs that can help restore the nation's competitive economic edge, thereby sustaining its superpower status.
All of America's swords are not in danger of being beaten into plowshares. But the Pentagon and other planners should be gearing to realistic goals in a new world. They should be promoting regional cooperation and collective security, not seeking grandiose excuses to maintain burdensome military outlays.
by CNB