Defenseless - debate over U.S.' military preparedness - Brief Article

There may be disagreement among Republicans over Kosovo, but there is a growing consensus that restoring our national defenses should be a priority for them. After news accounts of the dwindling supply of cruise missiles, the scarcity of spare parts, and the abandonment of other trouble spots to engage in Kosovo, Republicans believe that this little war is foreshadowing the problems U.S. forces would face in a big war. Missouri Republican Jim Talent, who serves on the House subcommittee on military readiness, says, "If there is a silver lining in this cloud, [it's that] there will be an opportunity for a debate on national defense."

That debate is long overdue. President Clinton has spent six years ignoring the needs of the military he now calls upon. Rep. Tillie Fowler, a Florida Republican, cites a recent Washington Post report about emboldened North Koreans closely monitoring the sorties and setbacks in Yugoslavia: "Every missile fired, every plane in the air, every soldier, airman, and sailor engaged, takes from somewhere else like Iraq or North Korea." The angry and frustrated Republican response to Kosovo is caused, in part, by the president's refusal to pay the costs of his military commitments.

For the past few years, members have been hearing about personnel and equipment shortages from mid-level officers and families of servicemen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on readiness, heard about the shortfalls over a year ago, when Slobodan Milosevic was still a valued partner in the Dayton peace accords rather than Adolf Hitler. Military planners in Germany told the senator that providing ground logistical support to troops in the Balkans put them at 110 percent of their capacity. When he learned that trucks ferrying supplies to Bosnia had over a million miles on them, he added money for new trucks to last year's defense budget. "It's just absurd to spend more money on maintenance than on what a new truck would cost," says Sen. Inhofe.

Over the past three years, Congress has added some $21 billion to President Clinton's defense-budget requests. But these increases have not kept up with the faster tempo of operations, as Clinton has made commitments in Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, Macedonia, the Taiwan strait, and now Kosovo. ("There have been more deployments in the past six years than in the past 30," observes Inhofe.) Indeed, defense spending hasn't even kept up with inflation for the past 14 years. Each increase was passed over administration objections that the Pentagon hadn't asked for it.

But last September, senior military leaders finally acknowledged the problem. Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, "Anecdotal and now measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy." Adm. Jay L. Johnson, chief of naval operations, reported that the Navy was 7,000 recruits short of its goal for last year. He attributed the recent 82 percent increase in the Navy's rate of major aircraft mishaps to reduced training and the loss of experienced pilots. The Air Force was 700 pilots short in 1998, and expects to be 2,000 short by 2002. Fully 25 percent of its weapons systems are rated "not mission capable." Gen. Charles Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that the average age of his amphibious-assault vehicles is 37 years, and flatly stated, "Our present defense budget does not adequately meet the requirements of today's Marine Corps." The Joint Chiefs told Congress that the president's budget was inadequate and that they needed an additional $24 billion for each of the next six years to maintain and modernize the force.

During a field hearing in Italy earlier this year, House members heard similarly alarming assessments. The chief of the Army's Force Command stated, "Funding has fallen below the survival level." And the commander of the Sixth Fleet and NATO Striking and Support Forces in southern Europe declared that the ability of his command to respond to crises is "potentially fragile."

The military is 36 percent smaller than it was during the Gulf War. Last year, the Pentagon determined that there was a high risk of being unable to win two simultaneous wars, a capability that current U.S. strategic doctrine demands. And even though the Kosovo assaults don't qualify as one of these major engagements, they have led to fewer patrols being flown over Iraq and a gap in naval forces in the Pacific. Sixty air-launched cruise missiles were used in just over two weeks in Yugoslavia, and 90 have been used in Iraq in recent months. There are now fewer than 90 in the cupboard, with no new ones on the way.

President Clinton responded to the readiness alert sounded by his military chiefs by proposing an additional $12 billion for next year's defense budget. But $8 billion of this "increase" represents savings from lower fuel costs and inflation rates that would be going to the military anyway. A good portion of the remaining $4 billion is dedicated to items like commissary operations and renovation of the Pentagon, leaving little to meet readiness needs.