Bush's Big Military Challenge: Finding Money
Jan. 10, 2001 -- Unlike when has father took office, future U.S. Commander in Chief George W. Bush’s military will not face a massive, unstable Cold War enemy with a conventional military force capable of overrunning American friends in Europe.
But the next president’s Pentagon is likely to face many challenges just as daunting, if not more. One of the most pressing will be the need to reconcile the military’s ambitious spending plans and Bush’s campaign promises — including a massive tax cut — with other federal budget priorities.
Also, new types of security threats have emerged, challenging the U.S. national security community’s flexibility, ingenuity, vigilance and resources. And debate continues to rage over how and where U.S. forces should be used, and whether gays should serve in the military.
Here are just a handful of the difficult issues the Bush Pentagon under the stewardship of Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld, whose confirmation hearings begin Thursday, could confront:
The Military Budget Crunch
Possibly the biggest challenge Bush will face is meeting the military’s spending priorities without shortchanging other federal budget items — including the tax cut Bush has promised.
Top military brass seem to agree, the military will need at least an extra $50 billion each year — above the roughly $305 billion budgeted this year — to pay for its current plans and commitments.
It won’t be easy finding that money in the Bush federal budget. Half of the government’s discretionary spending — that which presidents and lawmakers can adjust — already goes to defense. Unless the total federal budget is increased, money for increased defense spending would need to be taken from other discretionary programs, like education, health and housing. Federal budget spending is expected to be constrained by Bush’s campaign promise and continued vow despite a slowing economy to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
Another top Bush priority, building an aggressive national missile defense system, could soak up well over $60 billion. Over five years, another $20 billion would go to Pentagon research and development under another Bush campaign pledge.
Behind all those machines and technology are fighting men and women. With some of the services having trouble keeping their top people from jumping to the private sector, the administration also will need to find a way to improve recruitment, retention and quality of life. Bush has pledged to spend $1 billion more a year on pay raises for service members. He also pledged increases for military housing and benefits such as health care.
The Pentagon’s accounting troops could be busy over the next four years, as Bush pledged during the campaign to spend just $4.5 billion more per year on defense over the next 10 years.
Scaling Back Commitments?
Even with a $50 billion increase, many analysts believe the Pentagon will not be able to afford everything it wants to buy and do. Another way of dealing with the projected budget shortfall is to find savings in the current defense budget, letting cutbacks in some areas pay for increases in others.
Senior administration officials could face tough decisions about cutting certain expensive weapons programs and scaling back war-fighting plans or peacekeeping operations supported by powerful interest groups.
The Pentagon this year is conducting a massive Quadrennial Defense Review re-evaluating its strategies, size and spending priorities. But defense analysts expect the armed services will argue aggressively for their particular priorities and not for program cuts.
The services have long insisted they need a force large enough to fight two major regional wars against countries like North Korea and Iraq simultaneously — an expensive proposition. Critics have argued the United States can scale back, since it would likely have allied support in such conflicts.
Bush has said he favors reducing America’s overseas commitments, but didn’t say where. Bush did say he would consider bringing U.S. troops home from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. Such a move would not sit well with America’s European allies and probably wouldn’t amount to anything near $50 billion in savings for the Pentagon.
Weapons Systems
During the campaign, Bush said he would consider skipping a generation of weapons systems to find money to develop new systems, but did not offer specifics on what might be cut.
Analysts expect there will not be enough money to buy the three new tactical aircraft as currently planned: the F-22 fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter. The Army’s new Abrams tank and a new fleet of attack submarines might also be considered for cuts.
But cutting programs can be politically challenging because every system has its powerful advocates in Congress, the Pentagon, and the defense industry that will push hard for it. That’s what Vice President-elect Dick Cheney encountered when, as defense secretary under Bush’s father, he repeatedly tried to kill the largely Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey program.
The Marines still want to buy the Osprey to replace transport helicopters currently used and the new Bush administration will need to decide what to do about it. A fourth Osprey crashed in December, killing 19 Marines and raising further questions about the technology.
Lawmakers also are urging the next administration to buy equipment the Pentagon doesn’t even want, like more B-2 bombers. In early February, the Pentagon is expected to present its spending priorities to Congress in its 2002 budget request.
Missile Shield Questions
Building a national missile defense system could be difficult for the Bush administration, particularly because of the cost. But Bush also must convince skeptics in Congress its worth the money in light of persistent questions about the technology and increasing opposition from allies and Russia and China.
Though the system is still under development, the administration needs to make a decision to begin building the system by March if construction will take place this summer in Alaska, officials have said. A commission headed by Rumsfeld concluded in 1998 that North Korea, Iran or Iraq could be capable of a missile attack against the U.S. mainland by 2003 and U.S. officials have said the Alaska construction would need to begin this year to meet the threat.
But the system under development so far has failed two out of three tests to shoot and destroy a mock enemy warhead in space. A fourth test has been delayed until somewhere between March and June. It seems likely to occur after the decision about whether to build in Alaska has been made.
Meanwhile, North Korea’s missile threat, considered the primary justification for the system, seems to be diminishing with the current rapprochement between Pyongyang and Seoul. Even with a president pushing the system, a Senate split 50-50 on party lines may be tough to convince.
Nuclear Force Cuts?
Running parallel to the Pentagon’s quadrennial review will be the first major review of America’s nuclear policy in nearly a decade.
Nearly everyone in uniform thinks its time to drastically cut the nuclear arsenal — even without new treaties with Russia. The United States and Russia are discussing details of further cuts to their nuclear arsenals by as much as 1,000 warheads each. Moscow wants to reductions to save money, but it could withhold cooperation if the administration presses forward with a national missile defense.
Bush has said he favors the cuts. But he may have to overcome bitter disagreement within the right wing of his party to do so.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
In a partisan vote in October 1999, the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, effectively preventing the international agreement entering into force. The test ban would prohibit the detonation of nuclear weapons, in order to deter nations from developing new nuclear weapons.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff endorses the treaty, as does Colin Powell, Bush’s nominee for secretary of state. Bush and his other top foreign affairs advisers, Rumsfeld in particular, are said to oppose the treaty.
Gays in the Military
The Bush administration could be faced with a first-rate controversy if it tries to change its predecessor’s policy of allowing gays to serve in the military but not openly.
Many congressional Republicans have criticized the Clinton administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which permits gays to serve in the military as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation.
At the announcement of his nomination, Rumsfeld suggested the administration was not planning to address the policy early on.
Taiwan and China
The Pentagon will continue to have important input on the types of weapons the United States sells to Taiwan each year. Republicans in Congress advocate selling some sophisticated weaponry, such as P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft and Aegis destroyers, desired by Taiwan but previously barred by the Clinton administration.
Allowing those weapons would enhance Taiwan’s defense against a rapidly modernizing Chinese military. But it could also intensify the arms race between the two countries, possibly provoke threatened Chinese military aggression, and dampen information sharing and potential cooperation between the United States and Chinese militaries and governments.
Discussions with Taiwan are under way for a deal later this year.
Containing Iraq
Both the Pentagon and State Department will be faced with the challenge of keeping pressure on Baghdad to obey U.N. Security Council resolutions and prevent Iraqi forces from violating “no-fly zones” patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft.
Powell, a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he wants to “re-energize” the eight-year U.N. embargo on Iraq. But necessary support for the embargo has appeared to diminish among some U.S.-friendly countries in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, U.S. jets continue to fly risky missions to enforce the no-fly zones over southern and northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s regime continues to have a firm grip on power.