FORUM

Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2005

Finally, Peña seems to neglect the fact that U.S. national security depends on our globally oriented economic wellbeing and strategic leadership among many allies and affiliated nations. Our national strategy is based on the premise that as the world becomes more democratic, the occurrence of destructive wars will decrease. Whether one favors the relatively passive approach of the Clinton strategy, which was based on the assumption that democracy would naturally spread in a world of free and open trade, or the more assertive attempts to spread democracy adopted by the Bush administration, the fact that we have the world's dominant economy and military forces requires that, in our own interest, we must be a leader of what used to be called the "Free World." Adopting the "balancer-of-last-resort" strategy that Peña recommends would be taken by the outside world as a signal that the United States is retreating into the isolationism of an earlier day. One cannot be a leader by saying "you go take care of it, and if you get into trouble and Congress approves I'll come and help you, with forces I may or may not have." We saw what happened when we tried to adopt such a strategy vis-à-vis the Balkans, and it wasn't pretty.

As to the affordability of the armed forces under such a leadership strategy, there is little value in comparing our military expenditures with those of any other combination of nations. We can always find some such combination to add up to what we spend, and the more nations we include in the comparison the more profligate we can be made to appear. However, if in protecting our own security and that of our allies we need armed forces that have what the U.S. Air Force has called "global reach, global power," then we shall have to pay what it costs, in terms of our own cost structures and force needs. Although, as Peña points out, the current defense budget, including military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, absorbs 3.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), we were able to sustain defense budgets of about 5% of GDP for some years running during the socalled Reagan Buildup.

The current world strategic situation may not look as critical at first glance as the situation when the Soviet threat was foremost in our consciousness. However, a careful look will show that the current situation is more dangerous than it was then. There are more kinds of threats, stretching into the indefinite future, ranging from the Islamist extremists' jihad against us and our allies to the possibility of major regional wars threatening our world interests. Are we to argue that we cannot afford now what we did at that earlier, simpler time?

SEYMOUR DEITCHMAN

Bethesda, Maryland

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE if an article that uses the words "reality check" in its title were in fact based on reality. Unhappily, Charles V. Peña's attack on virtually every aspect of U.S. defense policy is not only unreal, it borders on the surreal.

Peña starts by tying his critique of the size of the U.S. military and the resulting defense budget to the war on terror. This is only one of the military's missions, even at present. As he well knows, the military must prepare for and be capable of prosecuting other conflicts, while also providing support to homeland security, humanitarian relief, and other missions. But even in the war on terrorism, Peña conveniently ignores the contribution that aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, tactical fighters, and armored forces are making to this struggle. Moreover, although conventional forces have demonstrated utility in the war on terror, the light counterterrorism capabilities Peña advocates would be relatively useless if a serious conflict were to occur.