Inside Out at the Pentagon

During the presidential campaign, one of George W. Bush’s boldest promises was to turn the U.S. military from a Cold War force into a flexible, modern one. It looks like he’s trying to keep it. The result: chaos at the Pentagon.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has thrown admirals, generals and Congress into an uproar with his sweeping look at reforming the institution. The quadrennial defense review that Rumsfeld is finishing up is required by Congress. This one is causing more consternation than usual because revolutionary changes in the military’s mission and force structure are being discussed.

Even though Rumsfeld hasn’t announced firm plans, the military and members of Congress are working overtime to gut even modest reforms, ranging from base closings to ending weapons programs, that might hit their districts and states. Already 34 of the 60 House Armed Services Committee members have warned Rumsfeld against troop cuts.

The Bush administration’s approach is visionary. It seeks to modernize the military, which is good. It also wants to focus on high-tech weaponry such as a national missile defense, whose efficacy is unclear but whose enormous cost isn’t. Still, the review could strengthen the military. For one, it is moving toward abandoning the superannuated doctrine of being able to simultaneously fight two land wars, each approaching the size of the Persian Gulf War.

As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz has noted, the military needs to be ready to carry out rapid deployments in areas like Bosnia and Haiti rather than fixating on the large-scale land conflicts of the past. The Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation has proposed that the Army be reduced by about two of its 10 divisions, the Navy by several battleships and the Air Force by 16 of its 61 fighter squadrons. It is unclear precisely which weapons systems would be axed, but overall purchases of tanks, ships and fighter jets would fall. The focus would turn to new equipment such as unmanned vehicles, precision weaponry and battlefield sensors.

A number of conservatives would like to hand the military a blank check, as during the $2.5-trillion buildup under Ronald Reagan. But with a slumping economy and a $1.35-trillion tax cut, the money isn’t there. President Bush doesn’t seem inclined to follow in Reagan’s footsteps and risk huge deficits. In fact, he’s been noticeably, well, conservative about the Pentagon budget, leading to cries of betrayal from the military. Actually, a smaller budget should give Rumsfeld more leverage in facing down his critics.

Bush and Rumsfeld’s attempt to trim and modernize the military is overdue. Bush should publicly endorse Rumsfeld’s efforts to reinvent the military, specifically by ending reliance on outmoded heavy weapons. Without Bush’s firm backing, Rumsfeld will lose to a Pentagon stuck in the past and lawmakers intent on preserving lucrative weapons programs. It took the anti-communist Nixon to go to China; it probably takes a president seen as pro-military to reform the military.