U.S. Goal: Keeping West’s Newest Arms : Smaller, More Modern Forces Emphasized in Senate Testimony

Two top-ranking Defense Department officials said Thursday that the Bush Administration will seek to protect the North Atlantic alliance’s newest weapons in forthcoming arms-reduction talks with the Soviet Union and, in some cases, to destroy older equipment in the United States to reach negotiated limits in Europe.

Their call for “flexibility” in the arms negotiations could lead to smaller but more modern conventional fighting forces on both sides.

The statements followed President Bush’s offer Monday to trim U.S. troop and weapons levels in Europe if the Soviet Union would reduce its generally larger forces to the same levels. The two key Pentagon officials tried to reassure the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States would remain capable of meeting the Soviet threat in Western Europe.

“Our strategy has emphasized the unique opportunity for actually improving the security situation in Europe,” said Paul D. Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense for policy. He said that the Administration’s review of its national security policy reaffirmed that arms control talks with the Soviets, now in progress in Vienna, “were the most fruitful way to bring these about.”

But some committee members, including Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the ranking minority member, warned that the arms reductions proposed by Bush risk lulling the United States into dropping its guard in Western Europe even before an agreement with the Soviets is signed.

“I anticipate that there will be some that feel we can bet a little on the come (on the future) here and take some reductions predicated on the strong initiatives taken by the President,” he said.

Retained Effectiveness

The two Pentagon officials insisted that Bush’s offer, far from dismantling the U.S. military presence in Western Europe, would leave a highly effective U.S. force.

Bush offered to reduce U.S. troops from 305,000 to 275,000 and to cut non-nuclear weapons, such as tanks and artillery, by corresponding amounts.

Air Force Gen. Robert T. Herres, deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned that the United States, in negotiations with the Soviets, must retain the “flexibility” to take reductions from the alliance’s oldest weapons and to modernize existing weapons.

In some cases, Herres said, that might mean that top-of-the-line U.S. weapons would be returned from Europe to the United States for use by National Guard and military reserve forces. To meet treaty requirements that certain numbers of weapons be destroyed, the United States would then destroy the guard’s and reserve’s older planes, tanks and armored troop carriers, Herres said.

“We propose to redistribute, not destroy, new equipment,” Herres said. “As long as we don’t do anything foolish and limit our flexibility, we have lots of latitude to modernize our force structure.”

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Herres acknowledged that the same flexibility on the Soviet side might result in a more effective front-line tank force along the East German border.

“We may have to trade off some flexibility to limit the Soviets’ flexibility,” he said.

Herres told the committee that the United States simultaneously would shore up its ability to return large numbers of troops and weapons quickly to Western Europe if necessary in a crisis.

The United States would leave “infrastructure” forces in place in Western Europe to coordinate a sudden influx of U.S. combat troops, Herres said. He added that it would build up its fleet of cargo ships and planes.