The United States will spend more than $1-billion a day on national defense next fiscal year, yet much of the money will go for redundant or obsolete weapons systems.
Donald Rumsfeld came in as defense secretary promising to eliminate obsolete Cold War-era hardware and shift the force structure toward special operations. However, he has been unable to halt the pork-barrel spending that bloats the nation's military arsenal. Both parties in Congress share the blame.
The war in Iraq was an opportunity to smarten the nation's approach to weapons procurement, but the spending bills making their way through Congress embrace the old money-tree culture. The House's $369-billion Pentagon budget for 2004 would provide $4-billion more than this year, excluding the $62-billion in supplemental spending provided to fight the war in Iraq. The Senate's Defense Appropriations subcommittee approved a near-identical amount, though the administration is expected to request (and receive) billions more for defense in the coming months.
It's unclear how the theme of the budget - "meeting today's threats while preparing for tomorrow's challenges" - is met by such a sweeping request. Rumsfeld talks up the need for a rapid, leaner fighting force that is easier to deploy than conventional forces, but then he seeks billions of dollars for the kinds of fighting vehicles, attack submarines, warships and next-generation fighter aircraft he originally promised to curtail. Two of the three budget goals - fighting terrorism and transforming the U.S. military establishment - are hardly served by committing to multi-year investments in weapons designed for large-scale military operations.
The House would spend $11.5-billion on shipbuilding (up $2-billion from a year ago), more than $7-billion for fighter aircraft and hundreds of millions of dollars for other ships and aircraft that serve no convincing need. The money was approved even as lawmakers and congressional analysts raise questions about the purpose and capabilities of the weapons they financed. Members of the House and Senate have differed on the need for an ambitious boat-building plan, especially for new $2.6-billion attack submarines. But this scrutiny of the Navy has not extended to the dubious weapons requests by the other branches. In a genuine sense, only a fraction of the budget reflects "force transformation." The rest is an old-fashioned military buildup and political pork.
Few members of Congress have shown the leadership to halt this long tradition of waste. (The Pentagon budget passed the House last week by a vote of 399 to 19.) Americans are right to wonder how an attack submarine would deter the average terrorist, and to wonder what nation truly poses a threat to America's established superiority in the air.
If Rumsfeld won't offer a budget that addresses the modern threat, then taxpayers should expect Congress to do the job, not to be a cash machine for more pork in their districts.
