Hi LV, ... that is, if the money was there. <<NMD as hi-tech New Deal. Of course, after this year’s tax cut I doubt that is what Bush has in mind>>
QUOTE
iht.com
Bush's Fuzzy Math Will Ruin His Fuzzy Plans on Defense
Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times Saturday, July 14, 2001
NEW YORK Fuzzy math, meet fuzzy strategy.
A month after President George W. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut was rushed through Congress, we now hear that the math was indeed, well, a little fuzzy, and that the budget could fall short by some $50 billion, thus increasing the deficit. But the Bush budget isn't the only thing that is fuzzy in Washington these days. The Bush strategic vision doesn't add up either. Not only do many of its policies clash with one another, but the fuzzy math that was used to slash taxes is going to limit some of the truly innovative things Bush wants to do on the strategic side.
That is what happens when you have an administration that comes into office with no integrated political-strategic vision, but rather with a set of theological positions - on taxes, missile defense and trade - some of which clearly contradict others.
Grover Norquist, meet Donald Rumsfeld.
Mr. Norquist, the Republican tax-cutting zealot who drove Bush budget policy, will be remembered as the biggest enemy of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for a "revolution in military affairs" and a revamping of America's strategic forces.
"I voted against the tax cut," Senator John McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee, told me the other day, "because I felt that it would not protect Medicare, it would not protect Social Security and I didn't feel that there was going to be sufficient money for defense. We've had the Joint Chiefs up here seeking additional funds to cover spending shortfalls in just operations, maintenance, readiness and personnel issues - let alone paying for national missile defense and new programs."
That's not the only place where fuzzy math meets fuzzy strategy:
•Mr. Bush vowed in an address at the Naval Academy to rebuild the U.S. military into a fighting machine "that relies more heavily on stealth, precision weaponry and information technologies." But the $18 billion in additional spending for 2002 that the Pentagon requested barely covers the increased costs of spare parts, pay and better housing for troops - and it is not even clear that this defense increase can be fitted into the tax-reduced Bush budget without tapping Medicare and Social Security. How they are going to raise the $60 billion to $100 billion for missile defense is a mystery, especially since Congress is resisting cutting any old programs.
•Mr. Bush called for expanding NATO all across the frontier with Russia. At the same time he urged President Vladimir Putin of Russia to support a U.S. plan at the United Nations for revamping sanctions on Iraq. Yes, Russia has its own cash incentives for protecting Saddam. But it seems never to have occurred to the Bush team that Mr. Putin might not have any interest in cooperating with the United States on Iraq while Americans are expanding NATO up to his doorstep. We may not connect the two issues, but he does.
•Mr. Bush is a strong advocate of free trade, but his first trade act as president was to do something that President Bill Clinton always resisted - erect a formal trade barrier to protect U.S. steel companies from foreign competition. This was done in part to neutralize opposition to the Bush global free trade agenda, but since that agenda has not been fully spelled out or decisively pushed, the steel protection act stands out alone.
•Mr. Rumsfeld's Pentagon said Thursday that it was soon going to begin building the Alaska portion of the missile shield, whether the technology works or not. Two weeks ago, in the face of threats by agents of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Rumsfeld hastily withdrew U.S. Marines who were exercising in Jordan and also pulled the U.S. 5th Fleet from its base in the Gulf. Message: We will deploy weapons that don't work against an enemy that doesn't exist, and we will withdraw forces that do work against an enemy that does exist.
Clearly, the Bush team is still getting its ideas together, Mr. McCain said, and clearly, Mr. Rumsfeld is committed to radical changes, "which is refreshing." But for now, Mr. McCain added, "except for national missile defense, I don't know what the Rumsfeld vision is. We have all these commissions, but so far nothing has come out of the Pentagon that adds up to a blueprint yet. That has paralyzed the process, because if we don't know what we're going to do it is hard to shape a defense policy. Hopefully, soon, we'll have that blueprint."
Hopefully, Mr. Rumsfeld will provide it. But I hope he checks first with Grover.
UNQUOTE |
