NEWS ANALYSIS : Defense Bill Demonstrates Uncertainty About Future : Congress: Lawmakers see the Cold War as over but postpone drastic cuts out of fear of lesser crises.

The breakthrough compromise in Congress on next year’s military spending demonstrates an apparent belief that the Cold War is over, but it also shows continued confusion and disagreement about what risks the future holds.

Under the compromise worked out by House and Senate negotiators, weapons programs designed to meet the traditional Soviet threat were pared back but not eliminated. The tough decisions on how to reshape the military were put off until next year when a vision of the future and its perils may be clearer.

The fate of the $288-billion package remained uncertain Thursday. A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said that Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and his advisers are leaning toward recommending a presidential veto.

“There’s plenty to object to,” the official said. “If we swallow it, it’s going to be a big lump to get down.” Just as critical of the agreement are lawmakers who had hoped that the advent of more amicable relations with the Soviet Union--which has emerged as one of America’s chief allies in the Persian Gulf crisis--would lead to major cuts in defense spending and a realignment of military priorities.

“I’m baffled by it,” said Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), the Senate’s assistant majority leader. “The world is totally changed. We need a differently structured military apparatus, (but) people are continuing in the old thinking.”

Throughout the 1980s, Washington invested heavily in huge weapons programs geared to meet the Soviet threat, with particular emphasis on resisting an invasion in Europe. Although military planners acknowledged the possibility of conflicts with smaller powers elsewhere, the traditional thinking was that “if we could skin the cat, we could skin the kitten,” in the words of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.).

A year ago, it would have been hard to imagine how quickly the balance of world threats could change.

Now, this country’s chief adversary is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whose government had relatively warm relations with the United States during the 1980s. And, even as the negotiators were working out the details of the defense package, Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev was announced as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In striking an agreement Wednesday on military spending for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House and Senate negotiators scaled back the most controversial Cold War-era weapons programs.

Among the programs that would survive with reduced budgets are the Strategic Defense Initiative’s missile-defense system, also known as “Star Wars,” and the B-2 Stealth bomber, which the House last month voted overwhelmingly to kill.

The congressional negotiators even spared several controversial weapons that the White House had wanted to ax--among them, the costly V-22 Osprey.

The Bush Administration contends that the high-tech helicopter is fancier than anything the Pentagon would ever need, but its congressional backers say that its capabilities--flying Marines over long distances quickly--are precisely suited to such situations as rescuing hostages.

In some areas, Congress did not hesitate to make fundamental changes. The total cost of the measure, for example, represents a reduction of more than $6 billion from last year’s spending. And it would reduce U.S. troop levels by 100,000, almost triple the cut recommended by President Bush.

The overall spending level and congressional actions on manpower “do reflect the scope of change in the world, but the (weapons) programs do not,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior defense official during the Ronald Reagan Administration who is now at the Brookings Institution.

Congress, he added, “is still not willing to be bold and cut major weapons. They came up to the B-2, for example, and blinked.”

The Persian Gulf crisis, which has caused the largest military deployment since the Vietnam War, is a major reason behind Congress’ reluctance to make drastic cuts that could weaken the military.

“If the Middle East situation had not confronted us, I certainly feel there would have been disruption or maybe the elimination of a major (weapons) system,” said Sen. Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican.

Another reason behind Congress’ unwillingness to slash defense spending is as old as the Pentagon budget itself: Military dollars mean jobs in someone’s district.

“You don’t just turn the spigot. You’ve got contracts and subcontracts. You could greatly disrupt entire areas of the United States. Those are real things to real politicians,” Simpson said.

Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.), an influential member of the House Armed Services Committee who has argued for a revision of defense spending priorities, said that the agreement shows “there’s a change, although it’s not coming as fast as some of us would like.”

Those who want the massive defense Establishment to proceed in a new direction are like seamen turning a Trident submarine, a vessel that is bigger than the Washington Monument, McCurdy said. The maneuvering begins miles before any real shift can be felt.

Even so, he said, the defense agreement--which still must be approved by both houses of Congress--demonstrates a new focus, an anticipation that the resolution of future conflicts may involve defusing threats posed by small countries that hold weapons of mass destruction.

The accord devotes some resources, for example, to improving U.S. airlift and sea-lift capabilities, the ability to ship weapons and personnel quickly to remote parts of the world, McCurdy said. In those areas, the U.S. armed forces have not performed as well as hoped during the Iraqi crisis.

Additionally, some of the weapons developed to counter the Soviet threat are seeing duty in the Middle East: The U.S. line of defense in Saudi Arabia is anchored by about 200 M-1 tanks formerly stationed in Germany as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.

For all the warming in superpower relations, many in government--particularly conservatives--have not let go of the idea that the United States someday might find itself in a direct conflict with the Soviet Union. In fact, Cheney--who is in Moscow this week--has expressed concern because of his belief that the Soviet Union continues to develop long-range missiles.

The defense package hammered out by Congress “overall is still dominated by the faded Soviet threat, but it takes the first steps toward providing a new defense for the new, post-Cold War era,” Aspin said.

“One thing that means is less emphasis on strategic weapons (such as long-range missiles) and more on handling crises like the one we have now in the Persian Gulf,” he said.