Campaign ’96 : ISSUES : Candidates Have Relatively Few Options, Differences on Defense : Budget woes and subtle disagreements mark an issue that had been largely ignored until campaign came here.

Listen to the debate between now and Tuesday’s California primary, and you will get the impression that national defense is one of the really big issues in this year’s presidential campaign and that the candidates are far apart on almost every question.

At first blush, the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and his challenger, Patrick J. Buchanan, seem to be at odds with each other--and President Clinton--on a broad range of issues, from building more B-2 bombers to deploying a national missile-defense system.

But military and political analysts alike caution that, for all the seeming divisions, the differences among the candidates are relatively small. And in many cases, there is little prospect that any of the three actually would be able to carry out what they have promised.

Indeed, political analysts point out that defense has not even been an issue in this year’s presidential campaign before the candidates realized they would have to address it in the run-up to Tuesday’s primary here.

*

Although Dole opened his first day of campaigning in California on Friday with an appearance at Northrop Grumman Corp.’s Pico Rivera manufacturing plant, which makes parts for the controversial B-2, he has said very little on defense before.

Buchanan too has hardly even mentioned defense issues, except in response to specific questions from reporters. Asked about defense problems during an interview with The Times on Thursday, he offered few concrete proposals.

Moreover, for all their apparent differences, the three candidates seem surprisingly united on many of the key defense questions that the nation faces--particularly how big a military the United States should maintain in the post-Cold War era.

Although they differ somewhat in how much money should be spent on defense, Dole, Buchanan and Clinton all want to maintain a military that is only slightly smaller than the Cold War-era force proposed by the Bush administration.

None of them has come up with proposals for revamping that force--as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed this past week--to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Nor have the Republicans criticized Clinton’s plans for slowing weapons-modernization in the military.

And, although many analysts believe that Clinton may be vulnerable to criticism that he is not providing enough money to maintain the military force that he envisions, neither Dole nor Buchanan has aggressively challenged him on that issue.

Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution political scholar, says that for all Clinton’s problems on defense issues--including controversy over his efforts to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War--he may have successfully outmaneuvered the Republicans recently by restoring some defense cuts he made.

“We’ll get some sniping from the various candidates about these sorts of issues, but we probably will not get sharp differences,” Mann says. “In an environment where you’re trying to talk about a balanced budget, it’s hard to call for an increase in national defense.”

Loren B. Thompson, a Washington-based defense expert, complains that when it comes to defense, “Republicans are on autopilot, saying the same thing they would have during the Cold War, while Democrats are covering their flanks, making sure the GOP can’t claim any victories.”

“Nobody really is giving this issue any thought,” Thompson says.

Robert W. Gaskin, a former Pentagon planner, blames the lack of political wrangling over the defense issues on the end of the Cold War. While there still was an overriding threat, defense was a big concern, Gaskin says. “Nobody’s interested in it,” he says.

Here are the defense issues likely to come up in the California primary campaign:

The B-2 Bomber

Defense expert Thompson says the only major California defense program about which the president and his GOP challengers seem to have any substantial differences is the controversial radar-evading B-2 bomber, manufactured in California by Northrop Grumman.

Dole and Buchanan both say they are for building more B-2s, while Clinton has said he wants to limit production to the 20 B-2s built so far and the refurbished prototype for which he contracted this week.

However, Clinton has been waffling on the issue over the past few weeks, and while Dole told reporters at Pico Rivera that he would buy 19 additional B-2s, he failed to say where he would find the $42 billion needed to pay for them.

Defense experts say even if the Pentagon decided to build more B-2s, it is unlikely that the order would save more than a few thousand of the jobs that currently are slated to be cut. And the Pentagon could end up having to cut other weapons programs to pay for it.

Missile Defense

Dole and Buchanan also want to design--and deploy--a national missile-defense system by the year 2001. Clinton wants to develop the system by 2000, but postpone any decision about building it until then--a timetable that would put off actual deployment until 2003.

But the system still is being developed, and analysts say whether the government commits itself now or waits until 2000 to decide whether to deploy it is not likely to make much difference in the short run. If the nation is threatened, any president will build the system.

Peacekeeping Missions

The three major candidates do differ on the controversial question of where--and how--to deploy U.S. troops:

Clinton wants to maintain the current large U.S. troop presence in Europe and Asia and to continue sending U.S. forces on peacekeeping missions, such as the deployments to Haiti and Bosnia, in cases where he believes that it is warranted.

Dole wants to keep a sizable number of U.S. troops abroad, but not send them on peacekeeping missions. And Buchanan would gradually cut U.S. troop strength overseas and all but bar the use of U.S. forces for anything besides defending the country.

“Initially, in Somalia, if you are rushing in there and it is a humanitarian mission, I can see that,” Buchanan says. “. . . But if you are talking about peacekeeping, I don’t believe U.S. troops should be put in that position.”

Whether a candidate would use U.S. troops for peacekeeping may be an important debating point, but presidents regularly have sent forces abroad when the presidents see a need and are likely to continue to do so no matter what they say as candidates, analysts note.

The Defense Industry

Military analysts say that with the Pentagon budget already squeezed, there is virtually nothing that any candidate can credibly promise to reverse the consolidations and downsizing of California’s defense industry. Clinton has sought to mollify California defense workers by crafting a plan to turn over to private companies some of the work now being done by McClellan Air Force Base, which will be closed in a few years, but most experts are skeptical that it can work.

Even Buchanan concedes there is little that can be done to turn the clock back for defense contractors. Asked what he would do to revive the state’s defense industry, the candidate replied: “I don’t have anything specific on that.”

Meanwhile, analysts say the debate appears to be glossing over the key questions: What should America’s national security strategy be for the post-Cold War era? What kind of military should it maintain? And how much should it spend on defense?

Experts say the likelihood is that voters will not find those questions answered--or even asked--either this coming week or during the rest of the 1996 presidential campaign.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

California Concerns

One in a series examining the positions of President Clinton, Sen. Bob Dole and Patrick J. Buchanan on issues of importance to California.

ON DEFENSE

Dole on peacekeeping and the B-2

Wants to keep a sizable number of U.S. troops abroad, but not sent them on peacekeeping missions. Would also buy 19 additional B-2 bombers.

Buchanan on peacekeeping

Would gradually cut U.S. troop strength overseas and all but bar the use of U.S. forces for anything besides defending the country.

Clinton on peacekeeping

Wants to maintain the current large U.S. troop presence in Europe and Asia and to continue sending U.S. forces on peacekeeping missions such as those in Haiti and Bosnia he believes are warranted.