March 29, 2024
BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE

Sen. William Cohen said publicly Wednesday what many members of Congress are only privately thinking, that the time has come for the United States to examine its defense priorities, and then summon the courage to make practical decisions that politically will be very difficult and extremely unpleasant.

Sen. Cohen’s call not for a reduction in the B-2 bomber program, but for its total termination is dramatic, given his party affiliation and national stature on defense issues. It is significant for what it portends.

Cohen’s reasoning is simple: American security interests do not require the production of the B-2 stealth bomber, and therefore there is no way to justify asking taxpayers to absorb the absolutely incredible $70 billion cost of producing 132 of these aircraft.

According to Cohen, the cost doesn’t end there. If Americans add up the expense of caring for this fleet of aircraft for the next 25 years — replacing parts, simple maintenance, repairs and occasional upgrading, the real price tag on the program, start to finish, totals $140 billion.

Americans have learned a lot about the defense budget since the Soviet Empire began to disintegrate, and they know that $140 billion, give or take a few billion, is enough to maintain for one year the entire U.S. European presence of 300,000 troops, four armored and mechanized divisions and more than 1,000 aircraft. At $140 billion, Maine’s share of the program works out to about $600 for every man, woman and child in the state.

Sen. Cohen is opposed merely to scaling back the program — a suggestion already made by President George Bush, who is backpeddling on the B-2. The reasoning again is compelling: It does not make military or economic sense to limit production of a weapon or weapons system that isn’t needed in the first place. Putting roughly half the bombers on line — President Bush has suggested 70 — will save only $18 billion, or one-third of the up-front, $67 billion expense, but more important, it will do nothing to protect the people and the economy of this country.

It is implicit in Cohen’s recommendation that national security interests come first. His decision to scrap the B-2 is based on military need. Savings, however impressive, are secondary. But his criticism of the project jabs at the heart of a military procurement system that was known to be flawed and now is under siege.

The easing of tensions with the Soviet Union and the dictates of basic common sense suggest to the public that in periods of significantly lower potential for war there should be a commensurately reduced level of expenditure on weapons — especially those, like the B-2, for which military alternatives already exist.

Sen. Cohen is speaking for the people, who supported a massive military build-up when it was necessary, but who now see the obvious signs of genuine detente and who believe a peace dividend to be a reasonable expectation.

…and Mitchell’s proposal

Sen. Cohen’s need to break ranks and take a bold step for a Republican is rooted in the administration’s reluctance to heed the advice of Sen. George Mitchell to convene a national study of this country’s foreign-policy objectives and military requirements into the next millennium.

Last winter, Sen. Mitchell saw in the crumbling of the Soviet empire and the domino fall of communist dictatorships both an opportunity and a challenge for the United States.

The opportunity is one for potential savings in the federal budget. After a careful analysis of national security requirements, the United States theoretically could streamline its armed forces and even eliminate some weapons programs, staffing requirements and bases.

The challenge is to forge a non-partisan team from both the executive and legislative branches of government to examine U.S. foreign policy and defense requirements in a dramatically changed global geopolitical environment.

Unfortunately, the latter hasn’t been done. Congress has undertaken its own review, but Congress does not make and execute foreign policy. That is done by the president and the State Department. Legislators don’t plan, design and deploy weapons systems. That is done by the president and the Pentagon.

Unless the president and Congress can look together into the next century, cooperating in an analysis of U.S. foreign-policy objectives, force-projection demands, military response and deployment scenarios and crisis-intervention capabilities, those making decisions in Washington will be compelled to deal piecemeal with the collective issues of U.S. security requirements and the commitment of national financial resources.

Absent a methodical, comprehensive study, such as the one suggested by Sen. Mitchell, Sen. Cohen’s dramatic announcement is just the precursor to a string of divisive partisan debates that will have a distinctive, pork-barrel flavor.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like