Give National Security Some of the Surplus

(Washington, D.C.): Yesterday, President Clinton took credit for an estimated $39 billion
surplus
in this year’s federal budget and the prospect that future budgets will accumulate revenues over
$1 trillion above expenditures. The time has clearly come to consider allocating at least
some
of any surplus to correcting serious shortfalls in the armed forces’ readiness, modernization
and quality of life accounts. Unless this step is taken promptly, chances are the Nation
will
wind up spending vastly more to correct for the “hollow military” href=”#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾ dictated by these deficiencies
— and the horrific conflicts such an American posture has historically invited.

A Case in Point: Bailing Out of the Gulf

One need look no further for evidence of the strategic implications of such deficiencies than
Secretary of Defense William Cohen’s weekend announcement that the U.S. was
reducing
its forces in the Persian Gulf by fifty percent. This step is clearly unwarranted by the
situation
on the ground — the dangers of which Secretary Cohen has done more to illuminate than any
Clinton Administration official, with his warnings about Saddam Hussein’s abiding weapons of
mass destruction program.

No one rigorously tracking trends in that volatile region believes that the Nation’s
interests
will be served by drawing down American military capabilities at this time. This is
particularly true of the departure without replacement of the aircraft carrier USS Independence,
given the limitations imposed by many littoral nations on the use of U.S. land-based forces
operating from their territory.

The truth is that, but for the Pentagon’s inability to afford the costs associated
with maintaining
significant levels of personnel and front-line equipment in the Persian Gulf theater, the United
States would surely not be cutting its “presence” there at a moment when yet another crisis with
Saddam is in the offing.⁽²⁾ Such a crisis is made all the more
predictable by the fact that the
American military posture is now diminished (notwithstanding the trumpeted doubling of cruise
missiles deployed in the region).

Does Clinton Get It?

Even the Clinton Administration — or at least some of its top officials — are now
evincing concern
about the inadequacy of the President’s budget for the Pentagon. Consider, for example, a news
item published this week by the respected trade publication Defense News. It
reports:

The Pentagon must ‘apply vast new resources to modernization, perhaps
$10
billion to $30 billion a year more‘

Jacques Gansler

“Pentagon officials have long sought to reach $60 billion a year in
procurement spending, but Gansler’s remarks raised the possibility they
may push for more. The Pentagon is seeking $49 billion in procurement
funding in 1999.” (Emphasis added.)

Leadership from the Congress

Secretary Gansler’s concerns are clearly shared by many of the Congress’ most influential
figures
on military affairs. Last month, an extraordinary bipartisan group wrote President Clinton and the
legislative leadership urging that more funds be made available for the Defense Department.
Eleven senior members of the House National Security Committee href=”#N_3_”>⁽³⁾ — led by their Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member, Reps. Floyd Spence (R-SC) and Ike
Skelton (D-MO) respectively —
warned on 22 April:

A wide range of quality of life, readiness and modernization shortfalls have
developed that, if left unchecked, threaten the long-term viability of today’s all-volunteer
force.

a hollow military

In order to avoid such a dangerous state of affairs, the Congressmen urged the President
and
the House and Senate leaders of both parties to “reopen negotiations on the Balance
Budget
Act of 1997 in order to provide for a sustained period of real growth in defense spending.”
(Emphasis added.)

There is reason to believe that at least one of the recipients of National Security
Committee letter
will be receptive to its recommendations. After all, last November, House Speaker Newt
Gingrich expressed concern about the wisdom of continuing to reduce defense spending
in real
dollars for the 14^th consecutive year. In testimony before the House Budget
Committee on 24
October 1997, the Speaker declared: “We have lived off the Reagan build-up about as
long
as we can. The fact is that our defense structure is getting weaker, our equipment is getting
obsolete and our troops are stretched too thin.”⁽⁴⁾

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy has long argued that the current levels of U.S. investment in
the
military are woefully inadequate.⁽⁵⁾ History has repeatedly
shown that the perceived vacuum of
power created by draconian cuts in American military capabilities have 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.

The Center strongly applauds, and even more strongly concurs with, the National Security
Committee’s bottom line: “Because we believe that to ‘provide for the common defense’
is the
federal government’s first, and most important, responsibility, we stand ready to work
with
you to ensure that America maintains a military befitting our nation’s superpower status — a
military that remains second to none.”

– 30 –

1. For additional evidence of the return of the “hollow military,” see
these Center Decision
Briefs: Clinton Legacy Watch # 22: More Evidence of a Hollow
Military (No. 98-D 62, 7 April
1998) and Clinton Legacy Watch # 2: The Re-Emergence of a Hollow U.S.
Military (No. 97-D
105, 25 July 1997).

2. See Prepare Now for the Iraqi
Endgame (No. 98-D 63, 7 April 1998).

3. In addition to Chairman Spence and Ranking Member Skelton, the
other signatories were: Neil
Abercrombie (D-HI), Herbert Bateman (R-VA), Joel Hefley (R-CO), Duncan Hunter (R-CA),
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Owen Pickett (D-VA), Norman Sisisky (D-VA), Gene Taylor (D-MS)
and Curt Weldon (R-PA).

4. See the Center’s Press Release entitled
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).

5. In addition to the “Hollow Military” papers above
(Clinton Legacy Watch # 22: More
Evidence of a Hollow Military [No. 98-D 62, 7
April 1998] and Clinton Legacy Watch # 2: The
Re-Emergence of a Hollow U.S. Military [No.
97-D 105, 25 July 1997], see, for example The
True Costs of the ‘Peace Dividend’: American Lives and National Treasure ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_41″>No. 98-D 41, 9
March 1998) and Clinton’s Reversal on Defense Spending Clears Way for Real,
Needed
Increases, Redirection (No. 94-T 118, 2
December 1994).