Misdirected Defense Dollars
"The Army should not be building its future around heavy
weapons like the 70-ton CRUSADER howitzer system. The
Crusader has many impressive battlefield features, but
the Army's bulky equipment and lack of mobility have
limited the service's role in Afghanistan and would have
made many Army units unsuitable for action in Kosovo
had allied ground troops been needed there."
The New York Times
Editorial
January 16, 2002
It's axiomatic that military
budgets grow in wartime, and
this year will be no exception.
The Bush administration's
planned $350 billion Pentagon budget for the next fiscal
year is some $20 billion higher than current spending
and a 6 percent increase over the rate of inflation. Events
since Sept. 11 have clearly demonstrated the need for a
highly flexible military force, adequately paid and housed,
maintained in a high state of readiness and equipped with
the appropriate high-tech tools of 21st-century warfare.
Unfortunately, the budget prepared by Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld shortchanges the Bush administration's
earlier promises of a boldly transformed military. While
some of the new budget money will go toward improved
pay and modernization, the Pentagon is still spending too
much on costly weapons systems designed for an earlier
era, squandering funds that should be going to more
rapid modernization.
Future phases of the war on terrorism, whether in the
Middle East, Africa or Southeast Asia, are likely to bear a
closer resemblance to the conflict in Afghanistan than to
the cold-war clashes for which the latest generation of
weapons systems were designed. Afghanistan highlighted
the need for pilotless aircraft and long-range bombers that
did not depend on the availability of nearby American air
bases. It underscored the importance of light, mobile
ground forces, special operations teams and Navy surface
ships and submarines that can launch planes and cruise
missiles.
Military planners must be ready to fight other kinds of
wars as well, but the Pentagon ought to discard obsolete
assumptions about the most likely enemies or battlefields.
The Air Force, for example, remains committed to the
F-22, a short-range tactical fighter designed for cold-war
dogfights. America's existing fighter fleet of F-15's, F-16's
and the newly approved Joint Strike Fighter already
assure aerial supremacy over any conceivable foe for the
next generation. Air Force dollars should go to unmanned
reconnaissance and attack craft like the Predator,
long-range bombers and the troop transport planes that
are in chronic short supply.
The Army should not be building its future around heavy
weapons like the 70-ton CRUSADER howitzer system. The
Crusader has many impressive battlefield features, but
the Army's bulky equipment and lack of mobility have
limited the service's role in Afghanistan and would have
made many Army units unsuitable for action in Kosovo
had allied ground troops been needed there.
The Navy and Marine Corps have been doing better at
modernization, converting submarines to launch cruise
missiles instead of nuclear missiles and delaying
production of large and expensive stealth destroyers. Still,
there is little justification for the Navy to build a new
generation of attack submarines.
The Bush administration is right to press ahead with
efforts to improve military pay, housing and health care.
Those are dollars well spent. Another useful initiative was
thwarted by Congress late last year. Secretary Rumsfeld
tried to free more money for modernization through
another round of base closings. Although about 25
percent of current bases are militarily obsolete, lawmakers
postponed action until 2005.
With the public in a mood to spend more on defense and
the conflict in Afghanistan emphasizing the importance of
military modernization, this year's budget offered an
extraordinary opportunity for Mr. Rumsfeld to call on the
various services to update their spending priorities.
Instead, he largely bowed to the momentum of familiar
weapons programs. It will now be up to Congress to press
for more forward-looking budgeting.
nytimes.com
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company |
