The True Costs of the ‘Peace Dividend’: American Lives and National Treasure

(Washington, D.C.): The Washington Times today published two news articles
illustrating just
how disconnected the current conventional wisdom on defense spending is from the
national security realities of this era — and the one now emerging. As one
article makes clear,
the United States has demonstrably cashed in a so-called “peace dividend” over the past thirteen
years, and most especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Far from being
cost-free,
however, as the second article reveals, this short-sighted policy has left the U.S. military
ill-prepared in important respects to meet the threats to the Nation’s interests that are
increasingly in evidence around the world.

Draconian Cuts in Defense Spending

The first piece, entitled “‘Peace Dividend’ Apparently Paying Off; Pentagon Budget Down
Dramatically,” describes how the magnitude of the reductions absorbed by the armed forces in
recent years (in the absence of comparable reductions in non-defense sectors). “The
Pentagon
budget has dropped a whopping 37 percent since 1985, the peak of President Reagan’s
military budget, and 30 percent since the Soviet bloc dissolved.“

“Nine years later, with the Pentagon having shed some 700,000 active duty troops and
closed weapons assembly lines, next year’s defense spending authority is $270 billion.
The figure is down from $429.8 billion in 1985 (in 1999 inflation-adjusted dollars)
and from $385 billion in 1989.

“The department’s procurement budget dipped 70 percent. The
Pentagon
closed billion-dollar production lines for the Army’s mainline tank, the M-1A2
Abrams; the Navy’s top dog-fighter, the F-14 Tomcat; and the Army’s front-line
attack helicopter, the AH-64 Apache….

“National defense is becoming a smaller part of the federal budget. In 1962,
the
Pentagon accounted for roughly one-half the total $106.8 billion U.S.
budget, according to an analysis by the House Appropriations Committee.
In the proposed fiscal 1999 budget of $1.7 trillion, the armed forces’ share is
less than 16 percent.“

The article concluded with a quote from Gordon Adams, who
formerly served as President
Clinton’s Associate OMB Director for Defense Programs: “…Between the budget discipline folks
in the Republican Party and the domestic spending folks in the Democratic Party, there’s
a
strong consensus on holding the line or reducing defense.” (Emphasis
added throughout.)

Reaping the Whirlwind

The impression left by this article is that the dramatic reductions in U.S. military spending has
been a painless exercise. Just three pages later, however, the Times’ highly regarded
“Inside the
Ring” feature cites recent congressional testimony provided by senior officers to raising
an alarm
that cashing in of the “peace dividend” has precipitated a hollowing out of the armed forces.
Among the most worrisome evidence of this trend are the following warning signs:

• “[Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, head of U.S. Pacific Command] told
  Congress…last week
  that [a recent] Pentagon exercise [to simulate a two ‘nearly simultaneous’ war scenario called
  for by Clinton Administration strategy] showed problems in his mission, which partly is to
  reinforce General [John H.] Tilelli [commander of all U.S. and allied forces in
  Korea] in
  wartime.”
• “‘U.S. Pacific Command has reported significant deficiencies in six of the
  eight measured
  functional areas for a two-major-theater wars scenario,’ [Adm. Prueher] said. Among
  them: air and sea lift, logistics and sustainment, intelligence and infrastructure.
  Significant investments will be needed to fix these problems.”
• “Among the specific shortages: The Navy’s U.S. Pacific Fleet has only 73 percent
  of the
  young sailors it needs. There is an almost 10 percent shortage in Navy non-commissioned
  officers. And the Hawaii-based fleet lacks 1,900 sailors who have key
  technical skills.”
• “Among the Pacific-based Air Force units, there is a ‘serious manning’ shortage in
  pilots
  ‘which cannot be corrected in the near-term.‘”
• “The rates at which planes are ready for war is dipping. Air Force technicians are
  cannibalizing one of every six Pacific-based F-16s for spare parts, more
  than double the
  1995 rate.”
• “Army and Marine forces in the Pacific have shortages of infantrymen and
  intelligence
  experts, among other specialties.“
• “These shortfalls will persist or grow worse because the Pentagon lacks the money
  to fix
  them. Such problems translate into potential greater losses of time, equipment and
  servicemembers.”
• “‘The Air Force fleet is getting older and being utilized more, which is putting
  greater demands
  on the supply and personnel systems,’ according to an Air Force document. Among 17
  kinds
  of Air Force planes — bombers, fighters, attack jets and tankers — 12 experienced a
  decline in ‘mission-capable’ rates since last year. For example, last year 84 percent of
  Air
  Force F-117A stealth attack jets were fully ready for all combat missions. In 1998, that rate
  has dropped to 75 percent, 10 percent below the Air Force’s standard for that kind of plane.”
• “Likewise, the [cannibalization] (CANN) rate has increased among 11 of 17 kinds of Air
  Force
  planes. For example, last year Air Force technicians ‘CANNed’ one of every 15 A-10
  Warthog attack planes. In the first six months of fiscal year 1998, the rate jumped to
  one in 10.“

The Bottom Line

It is becoming increasingly evident that the current levels of U.S. investment in the military
are
woefully inadequate. History has repeatedly shown that the economies arising from American
efforts to realize a “peace dividend” prove to be false and fleeting. Time and again, the perceived
vacuum of power thus created has given rise to conflicts — oftentimes conflicts that have
produced costs in terms of American lives and national treasure that vastly exceed whatever
savings had previously been realized.⁽¹⁾

As “Inside the Ring” observes, General Tilelli signaled in his testimony last week that the
price to
be paid from such a lack of U.S. preparedness could well translate once again into the
unnecessary loss of life and preventable devastation:

“I will not tell you that the tasks associated with defeating North Korean aggression
will be easily accomplished. This fight would not be a Desert Storm. The casualties
on both sides would be high and the longer it takes us to build up the necessary
combat power to destroy the invading forces, the higher the casualties and
devastation.” (Emphasis added.)

– 30 –

1. See the following Center products: Clinton Legacy
Watch # 17: Dangers of a ‘Hollow
Military’ (No. 98-D 23, 5 February 1998) and
In Cato Institute Debate, Center’s Gaffney Joins
Speaker Gingrich’s Call for Increased Investment in Defense ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-P_177″>No. 97-P 177, 24 November
1997).