ARTICLE

October 2004

Candidates Imprecise On Pentagon Spending

by Sandra I. Erwin

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.

Back To Top