|
 n the course of
the presidential campaign, candidates George W. Bush and Richard
Cheney, their surrogates, and
supporters made much of the GOP's commitment to "rebuilding the
military." While they only pledged to spend an additional $45 billion
more over the next ten years than the Clinton-Gore team envisioned
(about $55 billion less than the Democratic ticket promised to add),
the popular perception that the Republicans were more serious about
redressing the cumulative effect of years of the incumbents' malign
neglect of our armed forces could, arguably, have been determinative
of the outcome in this close election.
For this reason, it came as a powerful body-blow to the armed forces
and those who prize their service when the new Bush-Cheney administration
began signaling this week that it would not increase the Clinton-Gore
defense budget this year. Not by the promised $4.5 billion, not
in a supplemental request, nada.
Were that position to stand, it would have a devastating effect
on the military and the new administration. For one thing, it would
ensure that there would be no immediate relief in the kinds of shortfalls
that have produced headlines for months. These have included horror
stories about troops that are going untrained; aircraft, ships,
and other equipment that are unable to perform their peacetime missions,
let alone combat operations, due to lack of spare parts and fuel;
and acute shortages in critical materiel — from cruise missiles
to bullets.
In an important op-ed article published in the Washington Post
on December 20, two former secretaries of defense — James Schlesinger
and Harold Brown — offered a sobering, bipartisan assessment
of the magnitude of these problems:
"…A
few weeks ago the Congressional Budget Office released a study concluding
that we need to spend at least $50 billion more each year just to
keep our armed forces at the present level of combat capability.
According to CBO, $75 billion or more is needed to perform the sort
of wholesale recapitalization of the U.S. military that has been
made necessary by a decade of underfunding.
"A thorough and independent assessment by Daniel Goure and Jeffrey
Ranney indicates that it would cost roughly $100 billion more
a year to ensure that the armed forces have the kind and quantity
of equipment, realistic training and quality-of-life conditions
that the Clinton administration has said will be required in the
years ahead. The bulk of this amount (roughly 80 percent) would
go toward replacement of obsolescent aircraft, ships and tanks."
The effect of a Bush-Cheney failure to provide any additional financial
resources to the Pentagon — to say nothing of the
| “A
decision by President Bush to deny the Pentagon additional
resources would devastate those in uniform and out who
believed it when they were told by Dick Cheney last fall
that ‘Help is on the way.’” |
|
large sums truly required — would be fully to implicate the
new team in its predecessor's appalling treatment of the U.S. military,
and dangerously to perpetuate the armed services' present inadequate
ability to deter and, if necessary to fight, the nation's wars.
In a way, even worse, a decision by President Bush to deny the Pentagon
additional resources would devastate those in uniform and out who
believed it when they were memorably told by Dick Cheney last fall
that "Help is on the way." During the campaign Mr. Bush, et al.
often spoke about the need to revitalize the morale and esprit de
corps of the U.S. military. Few things would more powerfully reinforce
the already prevalent sense in the armed forces that their service
and sacrifice is cynically recognized by both political parties
only when elections roll around — and systematically ignored
the rest of the time. Chronic efforts to prevent the military's
votes from counting has further exacerbated the sense of alienation
from civilian authorities.
Should these perceptions be validated and take hold, the consequences
could be quite serious. Not only would the United States be less
ready than it must be to prevent and prevail in the conflicts to
come. The Republicans would also making a grave political error
insofar as they are seen to be stiff-arming a core constituency
— the Reagan defense coalition, for want of a better term.
It behooves them to reconstitute and energize this coalition if
they have any hope of holding onto the Congress in 2002 and the
White House two years later.
By some estimates, the potential membership of such a coalition
is vast — perhaps as many as 20 million Americans. These include:
active duty personnel and their counterparts in the reserves and
National Guard; veterans; dependents; base communities; and past
and present defense contractors and their union and non-union employees.
Then there are those untold additional millions of patriotic citizens
who may not have any more direct connection to the military than
a deep sense of gratitude for what servicemen and women do for us
all.
Fortunately, the Bush-Cheney administration has just put out the
word that it has not ruled out increasing the defense budget this
year, after all. It says it is simply determined to complete a "strategic
review" of the condition of the military it inherited and the kinds
of changes it requires before making judgments about the size and
purposes for which any defense supplemental might be sought. Sounds
reasonable and certainly orderly. The only question is: Will the
problems everybody knows exist right now be addressed promptly?
If the review is done with dispatch and additional resources sought
quickly, the obvious shortfalls, and the dispiriting effect of allowing
them to be perpetuated for even one day more, should be manageable.
If not, not.
Next week is National Security Week on President Bush's calendar.
It will afford him ample opportunity to showcase where he really
stands on defense — and whether the promised and urgently needed
"help" has actually arrived.
|
