THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 29, 1995 TAG: 9501270038
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 67 lines
The years since the end of the Cold War haven't been easy for the armed forces. Instead of a reward for its share in the victory over communism, the Pentagon got cutbacks as Congress pursued a peace dividend.
Now with a Republican Congress, the military may feel more secure. It probably isn't. Republicans bash the Clinton administration for underfunding the armed services, but the raison d'etre of the new majority is cutting government. The military won't be exempt.
The Contract With America pays lip service to beefing up defense, but offers thin gruel. It promises no U.S. troops under U.N. command and less participation in peacekeeping endeavors. It calls for a ballistic-missile defense, but control of proliferation will be as important. Complete protection against attack can't be engineered, especially with cruise missiles in the hands of regimes large and small.
The Contract wants NATO expanded to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But that's likely to inflame Russian paranoia. And such a step should be left to the executive branch, not micromanaged by Congress.
None of that addresses the central issue: the proper size and shape for a post-Cold War military. The Contract accuses the Clinton administration of a mismatch between the mission envisioned and the resources allocated. It quotes a GAO study that says the shortfall is $150 billion over five years.
But the Contract stops short of asking for a large increase in spending over the $1.2 trillion already planned for fiscal 1995-1999. Instead, it proposes a commission to study defense needs. If created, it will be the fourth or fifth such exercise in five years. Bush did one. Colin Powell studied roles and missions. Les Aspin had his famous bottoms-up review. Sen. Sam Nunn thought the Powell review inadequate and has been conducting a new one for six months.
Is yet another study really needed? Or are the Republicans seeking cover for an eventual defense budget little different from Clinton's in size, though priorities may differ somewhat? If nothing is done, bigger budgets are already on the way. A lot of weapons procurement has been postponed until 1998. A Congressional Budget Office study shows that defense spending could increase thereafter, to $272 billion by 2002.
That clashes with the Republican commitment to cut taxes and to downsize. Their aggressive budget balancer, Rep. John Kasich, has warned that ``the Pentagon should be reviewed with the same microscope as everything else in the federal government.'' Though some of his colleagues regard that as heresy, he's right. The times favor austerity.
The Pentagon is now seeking $2.6 billion to keep from having to cut back on training. It needs the money to cover unfunded missions in Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Korea and the Persian Gulf. Ultimately, the mismatch between missions and dollars may be resolved by subtracting missions not adding dollars.
The isolationist wing of the Republican party wants to reduce foreign entanglements. In the absence of significant technological rivals or an arms race, it makes sense to prefer readiness over new generations of weapons. Claims that we have to remain on guard against Russian backsliding are undercut by the military disarray displayed by Moscow's legions against Chechen irregulars.
Republicans who want to vote more for defense may find it hard to raise their hands while wearing a balanced-budget straitjacket. So, the order of the day is likely to be managing a more modest role with more modest means. by CNB