Weapons for a Future, Not a Past

The peace dividend that seemed so near with the collapse of communism in Europe in 1989 vanished many months ago, and now the Persian Gulf war dividend is fading fast. Under these circumstances, Congress is right to force a closer inspection of the type and number of expensive weapons the Pentagon needs over the long run.

With its 268-161 vote Wednesday to replace President Bush’s proposed Pentagon budget, the House was saying that large numbers of B-2, or Stealth, bombers built to pound targets in the Soviet Union are not needed to put out brush-fire wars.

It also challenged White House claims that the success of U.S. Patriot defense missiles in knocking Iraqi Scud missiles out of the sky in the Gulf War makes a case for spending big bucks on the Star Wars program. The House voted to trim $1.6 billion from the anti-missile program that--eight years and billions of dollars after research began--still has no weapon at hand that could protect limited areas, let alone all Americans, from attacking missiles.

The B-2 program would still get $1.2 billion for research, but nothing for production beyond the 15 bombers that Congress has authorized. The White House wanted to buy four more of them.

In theory, the White House’s Pentagon budget reflects lessons learned in the Persian Gulf about fighting localized--rather than global--wars, particularly against a heavily armed regional power like Iraq.

But in fact, as the House noted, the proposed budget was written last fall before the Gulf shooting began. It could hardly contain any lessons because it has not been revised since then.

President Bush threatens to veto any bill that cuts his budget for the B-2 or for Star Wars missile defense research. As neither the House nor the Senate shows any interest in exceeding a budget ceiling negotiated last year, the issue would be limited to the blend of weapons best suited to the national security in the next decade or two.

A question as complex as this could, of course, be settled with the brute strength of a veto, but a candid debate of costs and benefits to national security makes more sense.