In a presidential campaign that has prominently featured each candidate displaying
his commander-in-chief credentials, in many ways it remains a mystery where
either of them stands concerning future priorities for defense spending.
Neither President George W. Bush nor his opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, has
dwelt to any great degree on the nuts and bolts of military spending. Analysts
also point out that many of their pronouncements on military policy during the
campaign largely have been reactive.
Bush has remained firm on maintaining a presence in Iraq, but has not provided
clear estimates on how much the war will cost in the long term. Nor has he indicated
whether the Pentagon should expect major cutbacks in military programs to pay
for the war.
Those trying to predict what a Bush White House would do in a second term point
to his record on defense spending, which shows dramatic increases. The Defense
Department budget of $416 billion for fiscal year 2005 is nearly $100 billion
higher than it was when Bush became president.
But the critical question being asked in military and defense industry circles
is what future course the Pentagon budget will take. With the federal deficit
reaching unprecedented heights, savvy prognosticators are suggesting it is only
a matter of time before Pentagon accounts are scaled back significantly, no
matter which political party is in the catbird seat next January.
Especially intriguing is where Kerry stands on military procurement and modernization
priorities. Naysayers point to a 20-year voting record in the U.S. Senate that
consistently tilted to sharp cuts in weapons programs. But what can be gleaned
from Kerry’s speeches and media interviews in recent months suggests an
intent to keep defense spending at least at the Bush levels, or even higher,
given his stated goal to increase the size of the Army by two divisions and
to double the ranks of special operations forces. He also has recognized the
need to spend billions of dollars in coming years to refurbish aging weapon
systems and combat-battered equipment.
“Kerry has locked himself into fairly large defense budgets if he is
elected president,” said a Washington insider who tracks defense policy.
Out of all Pentagon big-ticket programs, the one most likely to get cut or
delayed under a Kerry administration is missile defense. Kerry was quoted in
news reports saying he would continue the research, development and testing,
but would free up “several billions dollars” from missile defense
programs to pay for what he considers more needed technologies, such as new
weapons for urban combat.
The candidates have clashed on one issue with major policy and budget implications—the
reallocation of U.S. troops overseas.
Bush announced in August a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany and
South Korea. Kerry strongly opposes the plan. He insists that a U.S. presence
in Europe is important because NATO has not yet digested its expansion into
Eastern Europe. He’s also said that pulling troops out of South Korea
makes no sense during negotiations with North Korea over what would amount to
an agreement to end the Korean War.
Although Kerry has criticized Bush’s war strategy in Iraq, he said he
believes that the United States must continue efforts to stabilize and rebuild
that nation. He supports turning more authority to the United Nations and to
U.S. allies, who so far have refused to send troops or money.
As to how the candidates plan to keep financing what has been, on average,
a $5 billion-a-month war bill, the expectation is that the Pentagon will continue
to ask Congress for supplemental appropriations.
Kerry has said it may be possible to enlist financial support from allies,
but he blames Bush for alienating traditional partners, particularly the wealthier
Western European nations.
Both candidates support more actively engaging Arab nations such as Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and are making a case that stability in Iraq would
benefit the entire region.
On the homeland security front, Kerry for the most part has not disapproved
of the president’s policies, given Bush’s high approval ratings
in that area. But Kerry has laid blame on the Bush administration for policies
he believes encourage the recruitment of terrorists. Again, Kerry vowed to bring
more international support to the U.S. war on terrorism.
But even though Kerry has laid out a more conciliatory international perspective,
observers point to “conservative” caveats, such as promises to support
“Buy America” legislation and to strengthen export controls on U.S.
technology.
This protectionist posture raises red flags in the defense industry, which
has been pushing the Bush administration to relax some restrictions on sales
of military systems to the nation’s closest allies, such as the United
Kingdom. It appears that the industry would continue to face resistance to export-control
reforms under a Kerry administration.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Kerry has taken a strong stance on defense issues
in response to Republican charges that Kerry’s Senate voting record proves
he is soft on defense.
Although Kerry has affirmed his intent to take an aggressive stand in national
security issues, several insiders wonder whether his assertions will translate
into real action if he wins the election.
“While all of Kerry’s positions sound good, they aren’t very
original and seem to be mostly defined in opposition to Bush,” said a
policy analyst. “It is hard to find an ideology that permeates his policies
other than ‘beat Bush.’”
As is the case every time a new administration takes over, the perspective
of a challenger can change once he begins to view the world from the Oval Office.