The New Order: Pentagon Lite : Defense: Big cuts are past, but billions can be saved by easing ‘two wars’ strategy and sea limits.

Depending on how one counts, the Republican Congress saved the American taxpayer $30 billion to $53 billion over the past two years. But at apparent cross-purposes with its emphasis on frugality, it added about $17 billion to the president’s requests for military spending over that same period.

Congress seems inclined to keep doing the same thing over the next two years. The 104th Congress’ last budget resolution, developed by most of the same leadership that will return to run the 105th, would add nearly $9 billion to the president’s defense budget for 1998, and $6 billion more in 1999.

In a broad sense, this debate is relatively small potatoes. The president and Congress agree on a defense strategy that calls for the ability to win two wars resembling Desert Storm nearly at once, with an active-duty force of about 1.4 million to carry out that strategy. Differences over funding between the White House and Capitol Hill amount to just 3% of the defense budget. But in the current fiscal environment, every penny matters--not to mention every $5 billion or $10 billion. Clearly, defense spending is likely to be one of the most contentious issues between Bill Clinton and the 105th Congress.

There is a case to be made for added military spending. But I would side with the president or perhaps cut defense a little more in continuing to reduce the deficit.

Although the U.S. military has handled the drawdown very well overall, strains and shortfalls have appeared. They include the following, each of which could drive up defense spending by roughly $1 billion to $3 billion a year:

% Certain military units are being used heavily in places such as Iraq and Bosnia, tiring crews and wearing down equipment.

% Savings from base closures have been realized more slowly than expected.

% Environmental cleanup costs associated with base closings have ballooned.

% Defense systems against ballistic missiles may prove more costly to build than now expected.

But overall, things look pretty good. The Pentagon today spends more per person on training, operations and equipment maintenance than it did in the 1980s, in inflation-adjusted terms. It spends almost as much on salaries. As is well known, budgets for buying weapons have dropped precipitously and will have to rise by 2000. But we still have enough good equipment left from the Reagan buildup and Cold War that we can afford to spend more money this decade on base closures and environmental cleanup and less on hardware.

The U.S. military remains capable of handling at least two simultaneous conflicts--perhaps not both on the scale of Desert Storm, but ample for the problems at hand. Even though official Pentagon doctrine calls for being able to fight and win two major regional wars at once, the nation has probably never had that capability since World War II, and it is hard to see why we should start now.

The Navy is busy maintaining presence around the world, but could get by with fewer aircraft carriers and other ships if it changed the way it conducts its mission.

Ships now go on overseas deployment for only about six months at a stretch. The main reason is concern for sailors’ morale: The Navy does not wish to keep its personnel away from their homes and families for inordinate amounts of time. As a result, it takes about five ships to maintain one continuous deployment. Instead of following its old ways, the Navy could leave ships deployed for up to two years at a stretch and rotate crews periodically by air--an approach supported by the Navy’s own Center for Naval Analyses as well as by the Congressional Budget Office.

On balance, the Pentagon could get by with less money than now planned. It may need up to $10 billion a year more to address funding shortfalls--roughly what Congress intends to provide. But it could save at least $10 billion a year by changing either the two-major-war strategy or the six-month rotations.

The days of big defense cuts are over, and the men and women of the U.S. armed forces can be proud of how well they endured them. But starting with its upcoming defense review, the Pentagon should continue to find creative ways to do its job more efficiently and economically--as it must, for the country’s good in these fiscal times.