|
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0224-02.htm
Published on Saturday, February
24, 2001
Washington High Fashion:
High Military Spending by Frida Berrigan
President Bush announced last
week that his 2002 budget would include only a "modest" increase
in military spending, in keeping with Clinton's projected spending of
$310 billion. More substantial increases will be postponed until Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reviews the needs of the armed services. The
delay is designed to send a "signal of fiscal discipline," says
Bush spokesman Ari Fleisher.
Clearly, this was not the signal
right-wing Republicans wanted sent and they are shifting into overdrive
to push for immediate and massive increases in military spending. The
Project for the New American Century rejects the idea that a Rumsfeld's
review is necessary to determine that "planes are flying for lack
of parts, soldiers aren't training for lack of funds." The group
calls on Bush to "increase defense spending, increase it substantially,
and increase it now."
While Project for the New American
Century describes itself as a "non-profit educational organization,"
the Board of Directors includes powerful Republicans, National Missile
Defense true believers, and at least one defense corporation boss. William
Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard who served as Vice President
Dan Quayle's chief of staff, chairs the group. Bruce Jackson, Vice President
of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest military corporation, is one of
the group's directors. His firm obviously stands to gain from astronomical
increases in military spending, as a significant portion would go to his
company. Jackson is well connected in Republican circles; he was the finance
chair of the Dole for President campaign in 1996 and a major Bush supporter
in 2000. He was heard to brag at a conference last year that he would
be in a position to "write the Republican platform" on foreign
policy if they took the White House. National Missile Defense enthusiast
and Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, who described Bush's decision
as his "first broken campaign promise," is also on the board.
If you only listened to the
alarmist rhetoric of Kristol, Jackson and Kagan, you might think Bush
was proposing to cut the military budget drastically. Not so. According
to a Council for a Livable World analysis, Bush's "go slow"
budget represents a major increase over current funding levels. Including
Department of Energy military activities, the total military budget request
for next year will be $324 billion, and this is before Congress adds on
money for their pet projects. Congressional "pork" amounted
to a $6 billion increase in the FY 2001 military budget, according to
Senator John McCain.
Republicans would like us to
think that the military suffered from malign neglect under President Clinton,
but only by using "fuzzy math" could one possibly draw that
conclusion. In dollars adjusted for inflation the United States is spending
more on the military now than in the mid-1970s, when the Soviet Union
and still existed and then superpower arms race was up and running. This
year's defense budget is more than the next 8 biggest spenders combined
and 22 times the combined military budgets of our fiercest enemies--Libya,
North Korea, Cuba, Iraq and Sudan. The U.S. and its allies account for
two thirds of the world's military expenditures, dwarfing that of rivals
Russia and China.
While conservative ideologues
beat the drums for a Pentagon spending bonanza, rational, moderate scenarios
like the one laid out by Lawrence Korb, former high level official in
the Reagan Pentagon, are completely ignored. Korb argues for a 20% cut
in the military budget, comprised entirely of Cold War behemoths like
the B-2 and the Seawolf Sub, that would free up $62 billion for education,
health care and rebuilding roads and bridges.
Given the money and power behind
the Project for a New American Century and fellow travelers like the Center
for Security Policy, a small but extremely effective advocate for deployment
of an open-ended NMD system, it is no surprise that Korb's proposals haven't
gained a sympathetic ear in Washington.
When the Project for a New
American Century called for a return to the "Reaganite policy of
military strength and moral clarity," to "increase defense spending
significantly" they gathered a long list of Washington insiders and
power brokers as supporters. While the letter demurred that such views
"may not be fashionable today," a number of the signatures belong
to close friends and advisors of newly inaugurated President George W.
Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, as well as the President's
brother Governor Jeb Bush, all put their "John Hancock" on the
letter, making it crystal clear that if it wasn't fashionable before,
it is now.
Frida Berrigan is a Research Associate at the World Policy Institute's
Arms
Trade Policy Center.
|