NEWS ANALYSIS : Pentagon Opposition Shot Down New B-2s

As arctic winds swept across deserted city streets Tuesday, Defense Secretary William J. Perry crossed the frozen Potomac River to carry a blunt message to President Clinton at a White House meeting: The senior officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force were adamantly opposed to more B-2 bombers.

After months of carefully sending out signals that he was leaning toward ordering more of the bombers produced by Northrop Grumman Corp. in Southern California, Clinton stunned the project’s supporters with the unexpected announcement Thursday that he would not put funding for more B-2s into the 1997 budget.

In reaching the watershed decision, Clinton was confronted by a simple but unattractive choice: risk annoying voters in a state that is fundamental to his reelection hopes, or risk alienating the military after great effort to mend earlier discord.

As the president sat in the Oval Office meeting Tuesday, Perry told him the simple truth: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military service secretaries and the 11 commanders in chief of military forces around the world, as well as the civilian defense leadership, unanimously were opposed to any additional B-2 orders.

“I doubt you could find a general in the Air Force who had a contrary view,” said Robert G. Bell, senior director for defense policy at the National Security Council, who sat in on the meeting.

The B-2 had attracted significant political support in Congress, from conservative defense hawks in several states, to California liberals who want the program’s jobs. They had hoped to win a commitment to spend $15 billion to double the current order for 20 B-2s.

Clinton had raised all of their hopes that he was ready to keep B-2 production lines going in Palmdale, supporting nearly 25,000 jobs across California and satisfying defense hawks who regard the B-2 as a potent weapon for an uncertain future.

But in the end, the congressional support and the presumed political fallout for Clinton in California with its 54 electoral votes was not enough to outweigh the unbroken phalanx of opposition from the Pentagon leadership.

White House officials said Friday that the president has not entirely closed the door on the proposals to expand the program. Clinton agreed to spend the $493 million Congress added to the 1996 budget for the program, originally intended as a down payment for additional production. And he asked for an additional study of the bomber, a gesture he clearly hoped would reduce the frustration of the program’s advocates.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon was the undisputed victor in the battle. But how could it be that the B-2, the supreme symbol of American military technology, would engender the bitter opposition of every U.S. military commander around the world?

The depth and scope of the opposition reflects many concerns and fears, some obvious and some unspoken.

*

Deputy Secretary of Defense John White, who attended the White House meeting, said in an interview Friday that the Pentagon could not afford the roughly $30-billion cost of buying and operating a larger B-2 fleet without cutting back higher priorities.

“Even if we were given more money, there are many other higher priorities than the B-2,” White said. “It isn’t like the B-2 is the next thing we would buy.”

Beyond that, the B-2--an Air Force program--also threatened to ignite interservice warfare, in which the Navy and the Army would pay for the B-2 through cuts in their budgets, according to congressional and defense industry sources. Even worse, the Air Force would be poised to usurp the missions of the Navy and Army in striking deep inside enemy territory in future battles.

“There is a turf war going on over there [at the Pentagon],” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Rolling Hills), a member of the House National Security Committee and a major B-2 supporter.

There was another unusual consideration: The Air Force itself was fearful that the jet would potentially eliminate coveted slots for generals because a larger fleet of B-2s would replace a much larger fleet of conventional tactical fighters--and the slots for generals commanding those forces, according to a senior Senate staffer and defense experts.

The sharp reaction to the B-2 decision Friday surprised the White House. Clinton has been careful to nurture the support of Californians throughout his term. His administration has generally responded quickly to their calls for help on earthquakes, fires, floods and other catastrophes, and polls have shown many Californians grateful for his efforts.

But in raising hopes on the B-2, Clinton again appeared to be falling victim to a mistake he had made last year. In 1995, Clinton had raised hopes that he might fight a federal commission’s recommendations to close a number of military bases in California, but then largely went along with the proposals.

The same pattern appeared to prevail this week. Even before Clinton’s meeting with defense officials this week, it was clear that the Joint Chiefs had a strong campaign underway.

White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta met Jan. 25 with a group of influential congressional advocates of the B-2 program, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles) and Harman.

They argued that the bomber has a unique military value, as well as an economic role helping a region that has been hurt badly by the defense build-down.

“I hear your argument,” Panetta told the group, according to a White House aide. But then he explained what they were up against.

“I’ve got a Pentagon that says they don’t need it . . . that this is not a high priority,” Panetta said. “And, needless to say, that weighs heavily on the president’s mind.”

Clinton had reasons, other than those of policy, to want to go along with the Pentagon’s urgings.

He had long sought to strengthen a relationship with the military that had gotten off to the wrong foot in 1993 when, at the beginning of his term, he sought a more accommodating policy for gay men and lesbians in the military.

And there were signs that the relationship was, indeed, improving; but the costs in California of this decision may be substantial.

“Los Angeles County gets extremely important benefits from the B-2 program,” said Dan Flaming, president of the Economic Roundtable. “The B-2 accounts for 30% of the defense dollars coming into the county. Northrop is the largest property-tax payer, after the utilities, and it is the largest technology company in the county. Without the B-2, there are a lot of people who will be hurt.”

Until Thursday, members of Congress, defense industry officials and outside pundits had no doubt Clinton was leaning toward buying more B-2s. Last fall, he stopped citing his opposition to the B-2 in discussing defense appropriations and authorization bills.

In December, Clinton told The Times in an interview that “there are circumstances under which I could go along with building some more, but it depends upon what our overall defense needs are and what the defense budget’s going to be.”

White House officials said Friday that they considered Clinton’s decision a major compromise for California because the administration did not seek to kill the $493-million B-2 appropriation--the down payment for more bombers. Bell, the National Security Council official, said the money will go to B-2 upgrades and enhancements.

Both Bell and White said the B-2 issue is not dead because Clinton had ordered a broad study to examine the military services’ long-range-attack capability--which could point up a need for B-2s to replace Navy or Army systems.

But B-2 supporters in Congress doubt that the Pentagon will change its mind about the bomber. Nevertheless, they have vowed to push for production funding in legislation later this year.

“This will be a hard, but winnable, fight,” Harman said.

* GAINING JOBS

Boeing adding workers. D1

* LOSING JOBS

B-2 jobs in Palmdale were already being scaled back. D2