[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1157-E1158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE CASE FOR A MUCH SMALLER MILITARY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 10, 1997

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the June 23d issue of 
Fortune magazine, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute has a concise 
coherent and persuasive statement of the case for a substantial 
reduction in U.S. military spending. At a time when we are facing 
drastic measures in various places to meet the widely shared goal of a 
balanced budget, we can afford even less than before tens of billions 
of dollars in unnecessary military spending. As Mr. Bandow notes, ``the 
bulk of the Pentagon budget continues to fund Washington's Cold War 
alliances. For example, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
100,000 U.S. soldiers stand guard lest phantom Soviet divisions invade 
Europe * * * the final refuge of those who support big military budgets 
is `leadership'. As Newt Gingrich puts it, `you do not need today's 
defense budget to defend the United States. You need today's defense 
budget to lead the world'.''
  The notion that the United States must spend tens of billions of 
dollars a year for no valid military purpose but simply to enhance our 
world leadership, as Mr. Bandow goes on to point out, is simply wrong. 
Few dispute the importance of the United States being by far the 
strongest military power. What we are disputing is the need for us to 
spend tens of billions per year beyond what it takes to maintain that 
position for the nebulous privilege of leadership which, according to 
some apparently, we must purchase from our wealthy allies by 
subsidizing them.
  Indeed, in the New York Times for June 4, an article noted that the 
Japanese plan to deal with their budget deficit by, among other things, 
further reducing their already very small military budget--secure, no 
doubt, in the knowledge that the United States taxpayers will provide.
  I ask that Mr. Bandow's very thoughtful article be printed for the 
edification of Members as we debate the budget.

                  The Case for a Much Smaller Military

                           (By Doug Brandow)

       How big a military does the U.S. need? The Pentagon, which 
     recently completed its once-every-four-years review, thinks 
     we need pretty much everything we've got. It proposes that we 
     preserve the current force structure, pare manpower levels 
     slightly, and allow inflation to slowly erode overall 
     expenditures--all as if the Cold War had never ended. In 
     reality, the nation's defense needs have changed very 
     dramatically in recent years. The President and Congress 
     should ignore the Pentagon's wish list and cut military 
     spending much more deeply by more than a third.
       Military spending is the price of our foreign policy, and 
     after world War II that policy was dictated by the threat of 
     an aggressive Soviet Union and its satellites. All told, 
     America spent more than $13 trillion (in today's dollars) to 
     win the Cold War. But starting in 1989, all the old 
     assumptions collapsed. The Central and Eastern European 
     states overthrew communism, the Berlin Wall fell, and the 
     Warsaw Pact dissolved. The Soviet Union itself disappeared. A 
     foreign policy and force structure designed to deter Soviet 
     aggression suddenly became obsolete.

[[Page E1158]]

       But U.S. military spending did not change accordingly. 
     Outlays have fallen, but only from the 1985 peak caused by 
     the Reagan defense buildup. Adjusted for inflation, 
     expenditures today remain above those of 1980. President 
     Clinton is spending more now than Richard Nixon did in 1975 
     and almost as much as Lyndon Johnson did in 1965. The U.S. 
     spends more than three times as much as Moscow, and nearly 
     twice as much as Britain, France, Germany, and Japan 
     combined.
       Although the world remains a dangerous place, it is not 
     particularly dangerous for the U.S. observed Colin Powell 
     when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``I'm 
     running out of demons . . . I'm down to Castro and Kim Il 
     Sung.''
       The bulk of the Pentagon budget continues to fund 
     Washington's Cold War alliances. For example, through the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 100,000 U.S. 
     soldiers stand guard lest phantom Soviet Divisions invade 
     Europe. It's not as if the Western Europeans, with a combined 
     population of 414 million GDP of $7.4 trillion, couldn't 
     defend themselves against Russia, with 149 million people and 
     a $1.1 trillion GDP, Britain, France, and Germany together 
     spend 25% more on the military than Russia, which just 
     announced a further cut in defense outlays. It is time for 
     the Europeans to take over NATO. There is certainly  no 
     need to expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe. The 
     old Eastern Bloc needs access to Western markets, not 
     Western soldiers. And America has no vital interest that 
     warrants guaranteeing the borders of Poland, say, or 
     Hungary.
       The case for maintaining 100,000 soldiers in East Asia is 
     equally dubious. South Korea has 20 times the GDP and twice 
     the population of North Korea, U.S. citizens spend more than 
     the South Koreans to defend South Korea.
       No new threats loom on the horizon. Germany and Japan 
     remain feared by some alleged friends, but neither is likely 
     to declare war on one of its powerful neighbors--many of whom 
     now possess nuclear weapons. China is growing but seems 
     assertive rather than aggressive. Its military expansion has 
     been measured. Brazil, India, and other nations may 
     eventually evolve into regional military powers, but the U.S. 
     has no quarrels with them and can adjust its policies over 
     time if necessary. Outlaw states like Iraq and North Korea 
     pose diminishing conventional threats that should be 
     contained by their neighbors, not by America.
       The final refuge of those who support big military budgets 
     is ``leadership.'' As Newt Gingrich puts it, ``You do not 
     need today's defense budget to defend the United States. You 
     need today's defense budget to lead the world.''
       But do you, really? The U.S., after all, has the largest 
     and most productive economy. It is the leading trading 
     nation. Its constitutional system has proved to be one of the 
     world's most durable. Its culture permeates the globe. 
     Perhaps an outsized military isn't required for 
     ``leadership.'' Indeed, even significant budget cuts would 
     still leave Washington with the world's biggest and best 
     military.
       No one wants America to be weak, which is why spending on 
     training and technology should remain priorities. But we're 
     ready for a radical restructuring--from, for instance, 1.5 
     million to 900,000 servicemen, 12 to six aircraft-carrier 
     battle groups, and 20 to ten tactical Air Force wings. The 
     military budget could be cut to some $170 billion from 
     today's nearly $270 billion.

     

                          ____________________