Don’t slash defense

It is an established fact: Democratic nations generally are reluctant to spend precious resources on their own defense. This helps make them among the most peaceable of states. It also can put them at risk if forced to confront hostile powers whose behavior is determined not by the will of the ruled but by the dictates of the unelected ruler.

In fact, time and again in the past, the USA has found itself seriously unprepared to deal with grave military threats when the nation’s leaders failed to understand or make the case for a strong defense. Ironically, the costs of rectifying such situations invariably exceeded whatever fleeting savings were realized from cashing in the "peace dividend."

Today, President Clinton is inviting a similar, dangerous situation. He proposes to reduce defense spending by a walloping $ 126 billion over the next five years fully 12% more than ex-president George Bush believed could safely be cut. Roughly two-thirds of the spending reductions in Clinton’s new economic plan will be borne by the Pentagon.

The impact of such massive reductions may not be apparent at once. But, as in the past, the ultimate result is as predictable as it is dangerous: Our military will again lose the level of readiness, sustainability and technological superiority we rely upon to deter wars and to win them if they must be fought.

Blind to historical experience and the mounting level of violence and instability around the world, some are urging still deeper defense cuts. Citing so-called "redundant" Pentagon capabilities, they would exacerbate the effects of other reductions by seriously degrading the flexibility and usefulness of whatever is left. The nation can ill afford such "savings"; we are likely to regret the far greater costs they ultimately incur.

Frank Gaffney is a former assistant secretary of Defense and host of a public television series, The World This Week.