Candidates Aren’t ‘Pro-Defense’

Michael O’Hanlon’s Nov. 2 commentary, “Clinton-Gore Defense Policy Was on Target,” mistakenly concludes that both major party presidential candidates are “pro-defense” simply because they have both proposed adding billions to the military budget. George W. Bush and Al Gore have not offered many specifics regarding their defense plans. Instead, both have promised to add billions to a bloated military budget that now exceeds $310 billion.

A real “pro-defense” candidate would critically examine the Pentagon’s requirement to fight two simultaneous wars and its plans to purchase billions worth of Cold War-era weapons. He/she would tackle issues like excess infrastructure, inefficient purchasing practices and horrific Pentagon accounting. While addressing these problems would save billions, they are scarcely mentioned on the campaign trail. Instead, both candidates are engaging in a bidding war that will only worsen current problems by rewarding bad practices. That’s pro-waste, not pro-defense.

DAN KOSLOFSKY

Senior Military Policy Analyst

Council for a Livable World

Washington

*

O’Hanlon missed the target. Both the major parties refuse to debate the fact that the U.S. spends $62 billion on bases in Japan and Germany for protection from enemies that don’t now exist. These countries can and should foot their own defense bills.

This $62 billion can supply every student in this country with a free college education and also free up military assets needed for other areas of concern. The debate on who is a better president for the military reminds me of the “bumper” used to distract the victim (taxpayer) as his pocket is picked by the military-industrial complex.

STEVEN McCARTY

Long Beach