Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 2, 1993 TAG: 9303020345
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TURF WARS
WITH THE Cold War over and military policy undergoing revision anyway, and with Washington talking so much about the need to cut the federal deficit and improve government efficiency, isn't this a good time - finally - to attack duplication in the armed services?Yes indeed, say officials with the new administration, and Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., who is influential on military matters in the Congress.
Not so fast, say the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their chairman, Gen. Colin Powell. They like the current configuration pretty much the way it is. They don't see why anyone would want to ask such impertinent questions as:
Do we really need four separate air forces - one each for the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force?
Or: Do the Navy and Air Force really require their own separately developed - but similar - fighter aircraft and nuclear missiles?
Or: Do we really need two separate light infantries - or, for that matter, both an Army and a Marine Corps?
Nunn has recommended an overhaul of the military services' missions and roles, including a hard look at duplication in a host of areas, from electronic surveillance and air defense to space operations.
Bill Clinton, in the heat of his presidential campaign last August, suggested that military reorganization could "reduce redundancies, save billions of dollars and get better teamwork."
Nunn and the commander in chief are right. But the joint chiefs, still fighting the last war, aren't giving up without a fight.
They've issued a report concluding - guess what - that the system ain't broke. Their study defends the redundancies Nunn cites, even comparing them to a car equipped with both air bags and seat belts.
One of numerous absurd examples: Nunn had suggested that the Navy might provide Marines with close air support for ground troops. No way, say the chiefs. Close air support, they insist, is now a "primary mission" for each of the services, requiring from each a separate budget request for many more aircraft.
Another example: long-range conventional bombing missions. Air Force bombers - B-52s, B-1s and stealth B-2s - obviously are up to the job. No way, says the Navy. It needs to duplicate Air Force capability by acquiring its own new medium-range aircraft.
Given that the Clinton administration plans, rightly, to cut the military budget more than George Bush had wanted to, it makes common sense to reorganize military missions so the dollars that are spent are employed most efficiently in defense of national security.
But common sense may require a shakeup, to begin with, and a reassertion of civilian authority. This is a military establishment that insists on buying B-2 bombers designed specifically to deliver nuclear weapons on a Soviet Union that no longer exists.
It's also a military fragmented into parochial fiefdoms. Their mission, they should be reminded, is to deter foreign enemies - not to skirmish with each other over prestige, assignments and budgets.