THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, October 24, 1996 TAG: 9610240315
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SERIES: DECISION 96
Choosing a President
Part 5 in an eight-part series on the issues underlying the words in
the presidential campaign.
SOURCE: BY DALE EISMAN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 159 lines
No matter who wins the presidency next month, shipbuilders along the waterfront in Newport News probably needn't worry too much about their jobs.
Same for the fighter pilots and mechanics at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, the Navy SEALs at Little Creek and the doctors and nurses at Portsmouth Naval Hospital. Safe as well are thousands of chief petty officers and other enlisted men and women assigned to ships at the Norfolk Naval Base or desk jobs across the region.
Both President Clinton and Republican challenger Bob Dole are committed to maintaining the military at roughly its current force levels. And thanks to decisions by past presidents, Congress, and the Pentagon bureaucracy, many of those forces will continue to call Hampton Roads home.
In a campaign between a decorated, severely wounded hero of history's greatest conflict and an incumbent who avoided the service and has cut defense spending while in office, you'd think that national defense would be a major issue.
But you'd be wrong. Though Dole has called attention to his World War II record and has attacked Clinton for cutting military budgets too deeply, the defense debate is on the periphery of a campaign dominated by talk of tax cuts and public ethics.
Indeed, the Republican challenger's long-term plans for defense spending are strikingly similar to Clinton's. The president wants to spend $1.61 trillion over the next five years, Dole $1.63 trillion.
The difference is when they want to spend it. Clinton's biggest budgets would come at the end of the five-year cycle; Dole would spend more now, buying a missile defense system as well as planes, ships and precision-guided bombs and missiles that Clinton wants to put off.
``We've cut defense spending too much in the first place,'' Dole complained during the Oct. 16 presidential debate in San Diego. ``The president told you in '92 he would cut it $67 billion. He cut $112 billion. So we're on the edge right now.''
In particular, Dole and Republican congressional leaders fault Clinton's refusal to commit to deployment of a limited national missile defense system by 2003. Dole argues that the nation faces a real threat of an accidental launching by Russia or China or an attack by a renegade country with a few missiles and a willingness to use them.
Clinton argues that the threat is unproven. His budgets would continue research on missile defense (cost: $10 billion) but delay a commitment on deployment (which could cost $60 billion more) until 1999. A decision to proceed then would still allow the system to be ready by 2003, Dole's target date, the president contends.
Clinton has reduced the Pentagon's weapons purchases to their lowest levels since the ``hollow force'' days of the late 1970s. The just under $40 billion he recommended for procurement this year is about $20 billion less than senior generals and admirals say is needed.
But with overall U.S. defense spending at around $260 billion annually - still three times that of No. 2 Russia and 18 times the combined total of all the world's ``rogue'' nations - Democrats contend the Pentagon can afford to delay its weapons buys slightly.
And even Republicans generally concede that Clinton hasn't scrimped on training and keeping the military ready to fight. Unconventional missions in Haiti and Bosnia have been executed flawlessly. And the administration has invested heavily in quality-of-life improvements - particularly housing and child care programs - calculated to encourage those well-trained troops to stay in the service.
Their overall agreement has made it easy for both candidates to duck troublesome questions about the military's future structure, even as senior uniformed leaders prepare for a quadrennial review of the nation's defense strategy.
Since shortly after Clinton took office in 1993, he, Congress and the Pentagon have been committed to maintaining a force big enough to fight and win two major regional wars ``nearly simultaneously.'' The two-war strategy, coupled with cuts in the number of troops, planes and ships in the nation's inventory, has dictated Clinton's emphasis on keeping the forces that remain at a high state of readiness.
But there is a growing consensus among defense-oriented lawmakers in both parties, as well as uniformed leaders, that maintaining the two-war strategy over the long term will cost far more than Clinton, Dole, or the taxpayers are willing to spend.
In a little-noticed speech last spring, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican usually regarded as hawkish on defense issues, suggested that Congress, the military and the president rethink the plan.
McCain advocates a force tailored to fight and win one war at a time, but with enough punch in reserve to hold a second foe in check until the first is dispatched. He would keep a relatively small number of troops ready to fight immediately, diverting funds now used for training to the purchase of high-tech planes and ships and precision-guided bombs and missiles.
Pentagon planners see those weapons, from radar-evading fighter jets like the Air Force's proposed F-22 to the Navy's ultra-quiet new attack submarine and missile-laden ``arsenal ship,'' as the key to keeping America's military the world's fiercest even as it gets smaller.
But the new weapons generally are far more expensive than those they will replace. One senior Defense Department analyst, Franklin C. Spinney, has developed projections suggesting that for the 10-year period beginning in 2003, the Air Force will need procurement budgets more than one-third bigger than those it received at the peak of the Cold War to buy the fighters it says it needs.
And with those fatter budgets, Spinney notes, the service will be able to buy less than half as many fighters as it purchased during the peak decade of Cold War spending.
Scheduled to begin soon after the election, the Pentagon's strategy review already is the subject of intense planning at the top levels of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Each has expensive and controversial weapons programs it is determined to protect. MEMO: Coming Friday: Foreign policy questions loom large for the next
president, but they've been largely ignored in the campaign. ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC
What voters need to know that the sound bites don't reveal
WHAT THE CANDIDATES SAY
PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS
Clinton: Has ordered two major troop deployments: one to Haiti, the
other to Bosnia. In addition, he has used troops to assist in
humanitarian aid missions in Rwanda and in Somalia.
Dole: Generally regards such deployments as a misuse of U.S. troops.
His view is that troops should be deployed only to defend or advance
vital American interests. He opposed dispatching ground troops to
Bosnia and Haiti.
Perot: In missions like Bosnia, ``the president's role is to explain
to the American people what is at stake and clearly define our
objectives.'' When on peacekeeping missions, American troops should
always serve under American, not U.N., command.
Comments on other issues/A9
MORE VIEWS
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Clinton: Has called for a $10 billion three-year research and
development plan to study missile defenses, with an option to build
a system three years later, if needed. Currently, however, the
administration regards the nuclear threat as too low to justify the
expense.
Dole: Wants to build a system, with an initial cost estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office at between $30 billion and $60 billion,
to guard against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack.
Sometimes called ``Star Wars II,'' the system would coordinate
ground-based and space-based sensors and counter-attack weapons
aimed at destroying incoming missiles in flight.
Perot: ``Once we have a balanced budget, we can then afford programs
such as missile defense systems.''
NATO EXPANSION
Clinton: Has proposed expanding the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization by 1999 to include several central European nations but
has adopted a go-slow approach so as not to unduly concern Russia,
which opposes NATO expansion on the grounds it could become a force
for containing the new Russia.
Dole: Has said NATO should be expanded no later than 1998 to take in
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Others should receive NATO
membership soon.
Perot: ``Before we expand NATO we must explain to the former Soviet
Union that this expansion is not a threat to them. In fact, it is in
their best interest to have a more stable Europe.''
KEYWORDS: PRESIDENTIAL RACE 1996 CANDIDATES DEFENSE SPENDING by CNB