New military budget must emphasize people

It was obvious during last fall’s presidential election that one candidate — Republican George Bush — was seen with particular favor by voters in the U.S. armed forces.

Bush was seen as "friendlier" to the military and far more likely to be receptive to the needs of the armed forces within the White House.

Thus it no doubt came as somewhat of a surprise when Bush’s proposed military budget appears to be far from the gold rush that some in the military might have expected. In fact, it represents relatively modest change in actual spending and is smaller (at least over the short term) than what had been proposed by Democrat Al Gore.

What is different about the Bush budget is in its approach. Bush is calling for nothing less than a complete global rethinking of how the military spends its money. This could be useful, because the demands placed on America’s armed forces today are vastly different than they were a generation ago.

Rather than set-piece wars between great powers, the military is now asked to deal with issues as disparate as peacekeeping in the Balkans to high-tech warfare in space.

In addition, the expectations of the American public have radically changed. We want our forces to prevail, but with as little loss of life and property as possible. Victory without body bags, in effect.

So a fundamental review is long overdue.

Our hope is that review will emphasize the importance of improving life for the human assets of the military, the men and women who serve in uniform. At one level, it is simply a matter of fairness: Housing, pay and work conditions must be improved.

But beyond fairness, there is a pragmatic reason for focusing on these lifestyle matters: retention. It is both foolish and wasteful to spend millions training our high-tech warriors only to lose them early.

And one of the ways the Bush administration can find budget room for this side of the equation is to look more critically at some systems that might cost more than they are currently worth.

One example is the proposed national missile shield that has taken on new life in the current administration. The General Accounting Office recently reported that a key element of the program — an infrared satellite network that would "see" incoming missiles — may not be ready on schedule.

In fact, the GAO says there are doubts that it will work as intended.

The GAO had other problems as well. The computer software needed to make the satellites work won’t be ready until well after the first satellites are launched. This suggests huge amounts might be spent on technology that turns out to be outmoded or inappropriate.

Whether one supports the national missile defense system or not (and we have our doubts), it seems to make sense to heed the GAO and devote more of the budget today to the core of what makes the military successful: the men and women who serve.

[back to top]