Defense Budget Crunch

There are other topics that ought to be of real concern in Washington these days. The nation’s military leaders told President Clinton this week that static defense budgets and the strains of peacekeeping missions abroad have cut deeply into the readiness of the armed services to respond to overseas crises. They are expected to repeat this troubling message at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in a few weeks.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen provided some details in a speech. The Navy and Air Force are having problems recruiting and retaining personnel, partly because they can’t compete with a booming private economy. The Army has been forced to shift money from base operations and infrastructure to maintain readiness, affecting the quality of life for its personnel. There are in addition reports of maintenance backlogs, spare parts shortages and morale problems in the 1.4-million-member armed forces. In sum, the military faces deficiencies that weaken its ability to defend the nation’s interests.

The problem could be seen coming. Under the balanced budget agreement, defense expenditures have been capped at around $250 billion, but the demands on the military have continued to grow. Costly peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Haiti have been paid for in good part by shifting money from other military needs.

Frequent deployments abroad have disrupted family life and discouraged reenlistments. The most serious losses have been among pilots and other expensively trained specialists. The readiness of combat units that would be the first to be deployed in a crisis, says Cohen, has been pretty much maintained, but that is not always the case with support troops. While fighting troops could be moved rapidly to a trouble spot, sustaining them might not be easy.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are reported to want annual defense budgets increased by between $10 billion and $15 billion for several years. Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, thinks that $5 billion is about the best that can be managed. That would do little more than keep pace with inflation and leave basic problems unaddressed.

The budget agreement requires that every dollar in new defense spending be offset by a dollar cut elsewhere. For starters, Congress might want to reconsider its adamant opposition to eventually saving billions of dollars by closing military facilities the Pentagon says are redundant. Congress might also review the add-ons it has voted for defense procurement. The House wants to spend $600 million more, the Senate $700 million more. In addition, many in Congress are eager to begin spending billions in new money for a national antimissile system for which there seems little strategic justification.

Congress too often looks at the defense budget and sees jobs and profits for constituents. Its first priority should be a defense budget that meets national security needs and promotes the welfare of the men and women of the armed forces.