Second thoughts about defense

One of the most important news stories in the past week – properly given front-page, “above-the-fold” treatment by The Washington Times – was that the Clinton administration was beginning to have second thoughts about gutting the defense budget. After meeting with President Clinton on March 16, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich said:

“[The President] reflected maybe a sobering realization that both in human intelligence requirements and reassessing our defense requirements that the requirements of American safety might well mean a bigger budget than he had expected a few weeks ago.”

Put less diplomatically, it would appear that reality is sinking in with at least some in the administration: The planned $126 billion cuts over the next five years in force structure, procurement and research and development funding, military bases and the attendant, severe contraction of the defense industry are reckless and irresponsible in light of present – and prospective – world conditions.

The truth of the matter is, those world conditions are likely to get a lot worse for American interests before they get better. This is so because the hopeful interlude begun in 1989 when pro-Western democratic forces seemed ascendant around the globe has given way to a period when those forces are under assault from radical, violent factions. These groups subscribe to many different political philosophies, agendas and creeds. They have one thing in common, however: a virulent hatred of the United States and the institutions and values it epitomizes.

What has yet to be widely recognized by the Clinton administration is the extent to which these radical, anti-Western elements are now actively collaborating with one another. In 1985, The Washington Times’ columnist Arnold Beichman presciently warned of such a phenomenon, giving it the name “the radical entente.” Today, such an entente is a reality with the active, reasonably systematic cooperation between the governments of pariah states, the terrorist organizations they support and various political parties or movements around the world. Consider just a few of the manifestations of this syndrome:

Item: Even as the evidence mounts that North Korea has obtained the materials and capability to manufacture nuclear weapons – and may already have produced one or more – its willingness to sell advanced weaponry to others is becoming more obvious with each passing day. For example, North Korea is believed to have a deal with Iran whereby Pyongyang’s strategic technologies (for example, ballistic missiles, fighter aircraft, tanks and perhaps nuclear knowhow) are traded for Tehran’s oil. As James Woolsey, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, noted last month: “[North Korea] is willing to sell to any country with the cash to pay.”

Item: Iran is also the beneficiary of a similar attitude among Russian hardliners who increasingly determine Kremlin policy. Submarines, Backfire bombers and turn-key facilities for manufacturing state of-the-art tanks and other equipment are among the assets thus flowing to Tehran.

Item: Iran, in turn, has become a major supplier of arms, training, intelligence, logistical support, diplomatic cover and strategic direction for others in the “radical entente.” Working with the Islamic extremist-dominated government of Sudan, the Iranians have set about trying to destabilize pro-Western governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. There is also reason to suspect that Tehran, which had a hand in the destruction of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Pan Am Flight 103 and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, was also involved in the World Trade Center blast.

Item: Despite Hafez Assad’s current peace offensive aimed at recovering the Golan Heights, Syria continues to be both a major recipient of North Korean and Iranian assistance in modernizing its formidable arsenal and in aiding and abetting Islamic and other terrorist groups in their campaign against the West. For example, Damascus recently took possession – despite much huffing and puffing by the Bush administration – of extended-range Scud missiles supplied by Pyongyang, missiles capable of delivering nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Israel and to much of the rest of the Middle East.

Item: Serbia’s historic close ties to Iraq seem to be flourishing despite arms embargoes on both countries. The Serbian Chief of Staff, General Zivota Panic, reportedly was in Baghdad recently meeting with the Iraqi defense minister. This is but one indication that Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein are coordinating their malevolent activities.

Item: Serbia has also shipped arms to warlords in Somalia, a distinctly unfriendly step calculated to exacerbate U.S. and U.N. difficulties in bringing peace and stability to the latter.

This list is only the beginning. Others, notably Russian nationalists, the Chinese, the Cubans, the Pakistanis and Afghan militants are also playing dangerous roles in this “radical entente.” Still, it suggests the magnitude and the complexity of the problem currently facing American security policy-makers – and that likely to emerge in the years ahead.

Clearly, it also illustrates the need not only to think about reversing the precipitous dismantling of U.S. defense capabilities, but to begin doing so fast. The costs of proceeding further down this reckless path will be measured in American lives and vital interests lost to the “radical entente.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the director of the Center for Security Policy, the host of public television’s “The World This Week” and a columnist for The Washington Times.