Copyright © 2002 The International
Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
At next year's projected level, Washington will be spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. With Al Qaeda not yet defeated, war looming with Iraq and tensions mounting with North Korea, America obviously needs to spend generously on defense. The armed forces deserve decent pay; up-to-date ships, planes and tanks; and cutting-edge technologies designed to minimize vulnerability and ensure battlefield superiority. But all of that can be had for tens of billions of dollars less than what President George W. Bush proposes. The $15 billion increase in next year's Pentagon budget is almost equal to the entire increase proposed for domestic discretionary spending. It's a bonanza for defense contractors, a wish list come true for the military services and a costly extravagance for a nation sorely in need of more federal spending on education, health and other concerns. As a candidate, Bush rightly proposed skipping a generation of technology devised for Cold War battles. But that is not what he's proposing now. The administration is requesting roughly $135 billion for weapons development and production. Only about $15 billion of that will go to new military technologies and useful weapons systems, like pilotless drones and submarines and advanced communications and information technology, along with an additional $9 billion for missile defense. The decision to finance three variants of advanced tactical fighter aircraft defies common sense. Tactical fighters lost much of their military mission when the Cold War ended more than a decade ago. In particular, the air force's F-22 should be phased out in favor of the cheaper and more versatile Joint Strike Fighter, designed to meet both air force and navy needs. Another mistaken purchase is the Marine Corps' accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff aircraft. The $14 billion budgeted next year for the tactical fighter programs and the Osprey represents just one installment. The overall cost of these four programs is $391 billion. That is clearly unsustainable. Spending of that magnitude will squeeze out money available for more advanced systems that will be increasingly needed in future years. If Congress were doing its job, it would reshape this budget to meet America's real defense needs. Unfortunately, legislators of both major parties are addicted to military projects, and nobody wants to face an opponent in the next campaign accusing him of cutting defense. With Republicans now controlling both houses, breaking that pattern will require the intervention of Republican defense experts like Senators John McCain and Charles Grassley. By challenging the Pentagon's spending priorities, they can fortify America's defense. Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune |