Foster's Daily Democrat

 Trimming the Pentagon budget is patriotic

   
By Lawrence J. Korb       
   

As President Ronald Reagan's assistant secretary of defense, I heartily agree with the point made in your June 14 editorial that the build up of our conventional and nuclear forces in Reagan's first term played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and our victory in the Cold War. (In Reagan's second term he reduced the defense budget by 15 percent because of the large federal deficit.)

But here's where I disagree with your editorial: Today, there's simply no reason for America to maintain 10,000 nuclear weapons, deploy a national missile defense system that has not been adequately tested, build weapons like the F/A-22 fighter jet or DD(X) Destroyer that deal with threats from a bygone era, or pour money into weapons that do not work, like the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

If we cut the nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons, as recommended by retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, former head of the Strategic Command, it would still be more than enough to maintain nuclear deterrence against Russia or any other nation, like Iran or China.

We would also save $14 billion per year. Keeping National Missile Defense in a research mode until it's proven to work would save another $6 billion. Canceling unneeded or nonperforming weapons and eliminating such wasteful practices as Congressional earmarks would save another $40 billion.

So by trimming the defense budget, America could save a total of $60 billion annually.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself tried to cancel the F/A-22 and says the Pentagon wastes $20 billion a year. When Vice President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense he tried to cancel the V-22, calling it a turkey.

Trimming these kinds of weapons could provide money that could be spent on programs that the American people want and truly need. Or it could be spent reducing the deficit.

None of the unneeded $60 billion has anything to do with fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, funds for those wars are approved by Congress through supplemental funding requests, not in the Pentagon portion of the discretionary budget.

This means our country could trim $60 billion from the regular Pentagon budget, which now is about $460 billion, without putting our troops at risk or hurting our ability to fight terrorists or extremists of any kind.

And here's the ironic part: Our nation would be stronger if we made these cuts. They would allow our military to focus on what's needed to counter current threats, without being distracted by wasteful programs.

What's needed, as our nation confronts terrorism around the globe, is a lean and mobile military backed up by the best intelligence and communications equipment we can develop.

So by trimming Pentagon waste, America can do a better job maintaining the best and most lethal military in the world -- because this, as your editorial stated, is essential to maintaining our freedom.

And we can put our democracy to work and determine what needs to be done with money saved.

Right now, Congress spends over half of the discretionary budget on the Pentagon, and this spending largely goes unscrutinized.

Why? Because members of Congress who question specific Pentagon defense are often worried about being labeled unpatriotic or "weak on defense," or having defense contractors fund their opponents.

But the opposite is true. Those who point out that the Pentagon budget is larded with weapons that have absolutely no use are actually being more patriotic than those who remain silent.

That's why it's vitally important for everyday citizens, who care about fiscal responsibility and national security, to encourage their elected leaders to question why our nation continues to pursue weapons that have no use against today's threats. In the current environment, questioning the Pentagon requires guts, to be sure. But don't we owe it to our brave men and women in the military to do what's right?

Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, is on the military advisory board of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (www.sensiblepriorities.org).