ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, January 19, 1996 TAG: 9601190090
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
MILITARY spending hasn't been debated much in the wrangling over fiscal plans. Why not?
Both Congress and President Clinton have made budget-balancing harder by proposing defense expenditures beyond what is needed to protect America's security and serve its interests.
Resurgent isolationism among Republicans, on top of their pains to balance the budget over seven years, hasn't slowed their drive to spend more. Higher military funding has become a mantra, repeated without analysis in the ``Contract with America.''
As for Clinton, he cites an ostensibly objective basis for his proposals: a ``Bottom Up Review'' that the Pentagon undertook under Les Aspin, the late secretary of defense.
This review was a good idea, purporting to determine material needs based on defense strategy. It calls for military forces powerful enough to fight and win two major regional conflicts, practically at the same time, without any support from allies. From the claimed lack of such capability now, a momentum for increased defense spending follows.
The problem is that, because the strategy is flawed, the force levels it requires are excessive.
In the first place, it is highly improbable that the United States would need to fight two major wars at the same time.
In the second, it is odd to assume no help from friends or allies. America spent $12 trillion over more than 40 years providing a defense shield for the world's democracies. Surely we can ask others to contribute to collective security. Surely we share mutual interests in deterring and addressing regional violence and international terrorism.
The Gulf War saw the biggest U.S. military action since Vietnam, yet even that smashing victory required only about 17 percent of America's active and reserve personnel.
The United States ought to be investing its international leadership to promote development of a standing, well-trained United Nations volunteer force capable of responding quickly to crises around the globe.
Meantime, even with the commitment of troops to Bosnia, U.S. military spending should be re-examined and more fully debated.
LENGTH: Short : 47 linesby CNB