Rumsfeld’s Reformers Going Easy on Pentagon

Some of the key panels reviewing military strategy for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are shying away from the kind of radical reform of the Pentagon that observers had anticipated.

The study groups, which were organized at the beginning of the year and have been reporting back in recent weeks, were widely expected to urge elimination of some major weapon programs to pay for a sweeping transformation of the military. But some of the most prominent panels have endorsed high-profile weapons, or at least remained silent on their desirability.

The F-22 fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter program and the Marines’ controversial MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft were unscathed in the reports of three of the most prominent panels, according to defense officials and others close to the process. Nor did the groups advocate an end to construction of aircraft carriers, despite the view of some military reformers that the flattops will prove dangerously vulnerable in war.

Rumsfeld, who has said he would “cherry pick” from the recommendations, could still elect to kill some of the programs to pay for modernization. President Bush has said it might be necessary to kill a major aircraft program--perhaps even two.

And it’s possible that other, less visible study groups have urged Rumsfeld to junk the big acquisition programs. Rumsfeld asked more than a dozen groups or individuals to compile recommendations; even close aides aren’t sure how many were assigned to help out.

The panels’ reports, which have not been made public, have been coming in as Rumsfeld has intensified discussions with Bush on the defense budget and strategy review. Rumsfeld met for several hours with Bush at the White House on Wednesday and is expected to ask Congress next week for a supplemental budget for the current year.

In June, he is expected to propose details of a fiscal 2002 budget.

President Bush will outline some of the main themes of the administration’s new military program at the U.S. Naval Academy commencement ceremony on May 25. And administration officials may offer details of the new military program earlier that week, said Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, the chief Pentagon spokesman.

Defense officials say Rumsfeld and his team have been surprised by the extent of the military’s needs for modernization and readiness, and are seeking a sharp increase in defense spending. According to one knowledgeable source, he is seeking to hike the $310.5-billion defense budget by 8% to 12% for the coming year.

Yet the Pentagon isn’t first in line; tax cuts are Bush’s priority. Some analysts predict the Pentagon will get just enough of an increase this year to support Bush’s claim during the campaign that he would restore the military after what he termed the neglect of the Clinton years.

The latest prominent group to report its findings to Rumsfeld was the “transformation panel.” Headed by retired Air Force Gen. James McCarthy, the panel included retired officers and other experts who basically agreed with the modernization program of the Clinton years.

The group urged continuation of the two tactical fighter programs and the V-22 Osprey, among other things.

Another panel, charged with making recommendations on how to structure conventional forces, had sharp divisions of opinion that complicated its work. This committee initially considered recommending sizable cuts in Army, Navy and National Guard forces but later shelved the idea, according to people familiar with the work.

A third panel, chaired by Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall, was asked to lay out broad principles of future strategy. Marshall has long emphasized the problems that large U.S. ships, including carriers, would have in future wars; this report was expected to upset the Navy and some in Congress by recommending an end to construction of the ships.

But the group’s final report made no mention of the need for the carrier force.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Virginia, said the Rumsfeld review team ended up with “not so much a revolutionary program as the Clinton transformation program--only this time, adequately funded.”

Thompson predicted that Rumsfeld won’t kill the prominent big-ticket weapon programs either. He forecast that Rumsfeld will seek savings for his program later on, possibly by privatizing non-combat functions--such as supply and maintenance--now performed by active duty troops.

He said it was the “dirty little secret” of the review panels’ work that “they were hard pressed to find stuff from the Clinton days that they didn’t like.”