Budget busters

A NATION AT WAR MUST MAKE difficult choices and endure sacrifice. The soldiers who risk life and limb in Iraq carry the most obvious burden. But those in government must also do their part, by selecting wisely where to direct taxpayer money.

At a time of belt-tightening throughout the federal government, including Medicare and several programs aimed at helping the poor, there is one corner of Washington where hard choices remain unknown: the Pentagon. The shocker in the $2.77-trillion budget proposed Monday by President Bush is that not one big-ticket Pentagon weapons program fell under the same knife that seems to be cutting the rest of us.

The proposed Defense Department budget represents a 5% increase to $439 billion (on paper, at least -- the amount does not include the projected cost of at least $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor billions of dollars in defense-related spending hidden in other departments). That $439 billion is not going to significantly affect an American mission that has cost the lives of more than 2,200 U.S. soldiers. No, the significant new spending is needed, the Pentagon says, for weapons systems that have no bearing on the current war.

Military analysts point to several boondoggle projects that deserve the ax. One is the Navy’s DD(X) destroyer, produced by Northrop Grumman Corp. for $3 billion each, designed to provide long-range firepower support to ground troops -- at least someday. Another is Lockheed Martin’s F/A-22 Raptor, a supersonic stealth fighter designed to penetrate Soviet-style radar systems, at a cost of $2.2 billion each.

The Pentagon’s recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review fended off repeated criticism from outside analysts that the DD(X) is far more expensive, and possibly less useful, than planes dropping precision-guided bombs. As the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, “the Pentagon decided that the U.S. shipbuilding industry ... needed the program.”

Under the cover of tough-on-terror rhetoric, military officials who tie career advancement to specific weapons programs have an incentive to protect pet projects. Every member of Congress is hungry to deliver jobs to the home district, and defense contractors are shrewd enough to “create jobs” in virtually every state. Southern California has historically benefited from this process, and still does, but when common military sense is sacrificed, it’s the nation as a whole -- and the soldiers in Iraq -- that suffer.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has been on a two-term mission to reorient the military into a more agile force able to respond quickly and effectively to new threats. Yet even he was unable, or unwilling, to stop this year’s mammoth 20th century projects from going forward.

War requires courage, both on the battlefield and at home. By declaring 16% of the federal budget essentially off-limits, and by spending scores of billions on programs even the military suspects are wasteful, the president is showing a failure of nerve.