Cutting Defense but Not Ruining It

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) invited a serious discussion on the size and shape of America’s military forces Thursday. Tired of waiting for the Pentagon, Nunn put together his own post-Cold War strategy for protecting American interests. His call (see excerpts from his speech on our Op-Ed Page) for deeper budget cuts and fewer troops than the White House has proposed will have the ring of truth in Congress, and even in some parts of the Pentagon. Since Nunn knows about as much about defense as anyone in Washington, President Bush would be wise to join the discussion with him and others who are tackling head-on the future role of the U.S. military. Otherwise, the President may find that the train has left the station without him.

Nunn promised to translate his proposals for reshaping American forces into dollar amounts for the next Pentagon budget in the next several days. The House Budget Committee, meanwhile, came up with its own idea of a proper Pentagon budget, suggesting real reductions of $12.5 billion. Budget committees propose limits on spending without getting into details, but the dollar amounts have the approval of Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), whose Armed Services Committee does get into details.

The day’s action on Capitol Hill seemed to line up Democrats against Republicans, but the Nunn strategy and the House budget proposal both have support that crosses party lines. More and more independent analysts are concluding, for example, that cuts over the next decade must start out deeper than those proposed by the Pentagon to avoid massive, almost chaotic, cuts toward the end to reach sensible force and budget levels.

The United States and NATO must keep their guard up, Nunn said, because the risk of war in Europe has only diminished, not vanished. But that can be done within the next five years with as few as 75,000 American troops in Europe--compared to the 195,000 figure that the President has said is a minimum. The risk of conflict will continue in and around the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, and that should be dealt with by creating better-armed and highly mobile units of troops.

Nunn argued for what he called “flexible readiness”--fewer troops ready to fight immediately, and more reserves “ready to get ready.” And he stressed that military forces are only one part of national security strategy that includes economic, diplomatic and political instruments of policy.

Nunn concluded by recalling that the United States dismantled its defense forces after World War II, Korea and Vietnam so haphazardly that the cost of rebuilding was vastly higher than it needed to be. Washington can avoid that trap a fourth time with a carefully constructed strategy, he said. He is right. The debate on strategy already has been too long postponed.