The Ultimate Social Security Is a Strong National Defense.

• Author: Skibbie, Larry
• Position: Management of armed forces and drafting of defense policies - Brief Article

During the past several weeks, much advice has been deluged on our new president; at least some of this advice deals with national defense issues. The suggestions cover the spectrum: from accelerating the nation's missile defenses to postponing further development; from quantum increases in defense budgets to drastic cuts in Pentagon spending; and from cutbacks to major system procurements to reductions in the size of our uniformed forces.

Every columnist seems to have his or her menu of pet rocks--but this columnist will not join in that exercise.

It would seem timely, however--as the new administration organizes itself--to review the predicament in which our country find itself in this new millennium. For 15 long years, from 1985 to 2000, defense budgets have decreased each year, when measured in constant dollars. Only in 2001 did the defense line tick up.

As a result, the indicators of incipient problems in the U.S. military are manifold. Overall levels of readiness are decreasing; morale is reported to have declined, not only among junior, but also among mid-career officers, and recruitment and retention concerns have become almost a way of life.

Further, it is now widely accepted that the U.S. military can no longer postpone efforts to re-capitalize equipment and must begin to execute a concerted modernization program.

Much of the equipment in use by our forces is older than the young men and women who operate it. And even though U.S. equipment may still be the best in the world, the way to minimize casualties is to use overwhelming power--which necessitates equipment overmatch, rather than systems that are merely on a par with our enemies.

Obviously, any large-scale modernization program requires large investments. Estimates vary from an additional $50 billion per year--according to the Congressional Budget Office--up to $100 billion per year, as recommended by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Unfortunately, the new administration's program only calls for an additional $5 billion per year, and much of that is earmarked for basic quality-of-life improvements.

Recall, also, that the electorate has said that, while it wants the United States to maintain its global position of leadership, it does not want to spend more on defense. In fact, the average citizen on the street thinks we should spend less on defense.

But there is no fat in defense, if in fact there ever was. The force structure is already lower than it...