Hardly a day passes without a fresh pronouncement that a new era of peace has arrived and the United States needs to rethink its security needs and spending priorities. Both conservatives and liberals agree that some change is warranted, but the questions of how much and in what direction are very much in dispute.
These questions focus on the U.S. defense budget now being debated in Congress. The budget submitted by the Bush administration has come under heavy fire. Whatever the outcome, the debate is likely to continue in the years to come as events shape our perceptions of the threats this country faces.
To help us understand the complex issues at stake, THE WORLD & I asked noted experts to assess the impact of the changes taking place in the Warsaw Pact on U.S. defense needs.
Ken Adelmen, former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, warns against over optimism that "eternal peace" has arrived. He calls for a "grand assessment of U.S. capabilities vis-ŕ-vis realistic threats today." The United States needs to "begin to match our actual military capabilities and our objectives," he says, and offers a number of concrete suggestions.
Most critics of the president's budget proposal suggest further cuts in spending for the Strategic Defense Initiative, but James Hackett, a member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, outlines a number of reasons why SDI should be retained. "The chance of Moscow launching a major attack is diminishing," Hackett acknowledges, "but the danger of an accidental attack or unauthorized launch is greater than ever, and the spread of missiles in the Third World is reaching epidemic proportions."
In the new era emerging in Europe, NATO's past reliance on flexible response and forward defense is no longer relevant, says James Blackwell, deputy director of political/military studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But conventional forces will still be needed, he argues, to meet a variety of contingencies, from low-intensity to high-intensity conflict. In meeting those threats, he says, the U.S. military must increasingly rely on high technology to bolster its chances of success. "No longer will the strategy of 'more is better' suffice to deter our potential adversaries….The United States will have to fight 'smarter,' not 'richer.'"
With general agreement between the administration and Congress that defense spending can be cut without sacrificing America's security, a fever is spreading on Capitol Hill to use the expected "peace dividend" for proposals ranging from reducing the deficit to housing the homeless. Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of the Washington Times, points out that the dividend may be smaller than anticipated. Moreover, the defense budget does not respond quickly to budgetary changes and is politically sensitive. In the end, Lambro says, much will depend on the growth rate of the economy and the size of the deficit.
Will cutting the defense budget have an adverse or stimulating effect on the U.S. economy? Murray Weidenbaum, director of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University, points out that the relative importance of defense to the American economy has been
...
Read Full Article
|
