Difficult choices lie ahead for the nation's military services.

• Author: Farrell, Jr., Lawrence P.
• Position: PRESIDENT'S PERSPECTIVE

Much discussion--even hand wringing--is taking place among the military, Congress and defense industry about where finite resources need to be placed.

At issue is the current, expensive conflict in Iraq on the one hand and on the other, equally demanding arenas, such as preparing for future conflicts, that are getting shortchanged in the process.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has touched on this subject in various speeches recently, which is an indication of how much tension still exists within the Pentagon about how to plan for the future without neglecting current needs.

"Much of what we are talking about is a matter of balancing risk: today's demands versus tomorrow's contingencies ... As the world's remaining superpower, we have to be able to dissuade, deter, and, if necessary, respond to challenges across the spectrum," Gates said.

In a world of limited resources, the services surely will have to make difficult decisions in the months and years ahead.

The military services perform three basic functions--organize, train and equip forces for combat operations. Our military forces bring technologically superior equipment to the battlefield and extremely well-trained warriors. In peacetime, the services concentrate on modernization and advancing the state of technology while constantly improving training.

In wartime, the pendulum must swing over to winning the current conflict. That means resources often have to be diverted from future modernization to pay for operations, maintenance, and to replace destroyed and damaged equipment.

The Defense Department is thus forced to do what military leaders say they never want to do: plan to fight the last--in this case the current--war.

The nation's political leadership and citizens want the current conflict to be resolved as quickly as possible. If the services accumulate a backlog of modernization and recapitalization needs, the dilemma--win the current war or modernize for future conflicts--is painfully sharpened.

That seems to be where the services find themselves now.

The Army came into the current conflict as it was defining the requirements for its Future Combat Systems family of vehicles and high-tech weapons. It now finds that much of those resources are being pulled into the recapitalization of older war-tom equipment. The Navy's ship recapitalization has fallen behind. Current ship production rates won't get the Navy to its 313-ship goal unless it is willing to continue to age its...