Events since Sept. 11 have revealed the unparalleled strength of the United States' conventional military resources -- and the dangerous gaps that had existed in our ability to defend ourselves from terrorism and other unconventional threats to our security. Bolstering our defenses against those so-called "asymmetrical" threats without weakening our conventional military assets will be a paramount national mission for many years to come.

Our military intervention in Afghanistan, like our involvement in the Balkans in the late 1990s, has quickly met its primary objective, confounding the critics who warned of heavy U.S. casualties and potential quagmires. Those successes are a tribute to our military personnel, technology and planning, all of which had been subjected to unwarranted criticism. During the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney added their voices to those of congressional Republicans who claimed that our conventional military assets had been decimated under the Clinton administration. That criticism was misguided. With few exceptions, our traditional military strength was protected, even as the Pentagon's share of the federal budget was reduced in the course of reversing years of deficits.

However, the Clinton administration, like its immediate predecessors, does deserve criticism for its halfhearted response to the growing threat posed by international terrorism. The 1990s were a decade of escalating attacks against American targets in the Middle East and Africa. In response, the Clinton administration did little more than lob a few cruise missiles at suspected al-Qaida facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan. Our human intelligence inside Islamic terrorist groups withered away to virtually nothing. Domestic security and civil defense operations languished.

The media also deserve ample blame for ignoring the issue of terrorism in favor of serial scandals and other trivia. For example, the U.S. Commission on National Security, chaired by former Sens. Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, issued compelling reports on the growing threat of terrorist attacks within our borders. Their findings were given scant attention -- until Sept. 11.

Our inadequate focus on the growing terrorist threat continued through the first eight months of the current Bush administration. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserves credit for having committed himself early on to the complex, and politically treacherous, task of a comprehensive strategic review of our military operations. That review was completed less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, and the post-Sept. 11 reality may help Rumsfeld overcome the institutional resistance to the reforms he advocates.

Even before Sept. 11, Rumsfeld had proposed to redirect our defense resources away from conventional Cold War threats and toward modern menaces such as al-Qaida. Paying for improved homeland security and more effective counterterrorism operations will require closing superfluous military bases, rejecting unnecessary conventional hardware and taking other steps that will be vigorously resisted by defense contractors, members of Congress and others with a vested interest in the status quo.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon budget for the next fiscal year doesn't live up to Rumsfeld's promises. It makes unwise commitments to expensive, obsolescent hardware and takes only timid steps toward readjusting our defense priorities. Completing that transition has become a national priority. Our soldiers and military planners continue to make us proud in Afghanistan. They, and all other Americans, deserve to know that our political leaders are committed to taking the steps needed to bolster our defenses against the modern threats that will still be present once the battle in Afghanistan is over.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page