Cut deployments to save military moolah

Last week President George W. Bush shocked a host of Pentagon hawks when he said that, outside of a few bucks for better pay and housing for troops, he would not seek substantial increases in military spending this year.

That may not be a bad idea, depending upon whether or not current expenditures are -- shall we say -- "shifted" to reflect the reality of today's sagging military readiness.

For example, still to come is a review of current Department of Defense strategies and needs, as well as an examination of what the Pentagon believes it will need in at least the immediate future.

The downside is, barring any major "breakthroughs," Mr. Bush appears content to leave next year's budget in former President Bill Clinton's incapable hands -- meaning he won't seek to change the individual spending amounts, if not the total budgetary amount. That's a huge mistake.

TRENDING: Reigning Mrs. World arrested after taking tiara from winner in ugly meltdown

It's nice of Mr. Bush to want to spare the taxpayers some dough, but if he is content to continue to allow the current state of military disorder and disrepair stand in lieu of seeking more money for weak line items -- or if he is content to largely leave the budget as it stands without shifting funds to other line items (which he may have to do since it's already been approved by Congress) -- the very least he could and should do is dramatically scale back the number of U.S. commitments worldwide to save some money.

Now before you GOP hawks get your missiles in a bunch, understand that your group has been one of the most vociferous supporters of several studies and reports over the past few years detailing the worsening military readiness situation caused by years of neglect and overuse.

Also, this particular group -- which includes yours truly -- is well aware of the emerging high-technology threats posed by China, Russia, and other nations in regards to "asymmetrical warfare," ballistic missile technology, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

So, even as our military continues to be abused, line items in the current budget do little or nothing to rebuild and "reinvigorate" the force along the lines of promises made by the president when he was still candidate Bush.

Unable to add much money to the current budget and unable to change line items already approved, then the Bush administration is left with little other choice. Unless we cut our expensive commitments elsewhere, there simply will not be enough money to fund needed new systems and replenish the existing line items while we continue to spend billions "policing" half the world.

I've no doubt the Bush-ordered review, which will be conducted expeditiously by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a small gaggle of "outside the box" thinkers at the Pentagon, will call for the maintenance of a presence in "historical" places like Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

But clearly there are no legitimate national security reasons to remain in Bosnia, Kosovo, or the dozens of other "little places" U.S. forces are currently deployed. Indeed, under Clinton's watch, I recall the Pentagon bragging a few years ago that our forces had finally been deployed to more than 100 places around the globe. That's ridiculous, and it's expensive.

Also, despite the hawks' cheering of our thumping of Saddam Hussein again last week, that's another commitment that needs to go away. The sanctions should be lifted as well as the no-fly zones; it's been 10 years, for crying out loud. American planes and crews should be brought home for much needed rest, relaxation and repairs.

"Oh, my," you say, "who will be left to ensure that Saddam doesn't rebuild his weapons of mass destruction?"

Can you say: "Israel?" Who better? If U.S. intelligence picks up Iraqi threats again, then we can help the Israelis thump Saddam once more; we just don't need the daily, expensive commitment at a time when we're looking for money to make military technology advances.

If the Bush administration is to fulfill, in the short term, its obligation to rebuild the failing U.S. military infrastructure and reshape the total force to meet the next decade's most likely peer competitors, it can't afford to waste any time getting started.

Our allies will simply have to understand and they'll need to help us out here by curbing their expected whining so we can get this transformation under way.

You hawks out there know this is the correct strategy, so do the right thing and support it. It's not "isolationism"; it's refocusing our limited military budget resources in a way that will speed force modernization and enhance readiness.

Our enemies are well on their way to next-generation weapons-building. We should be, too, but we're not because we're spending too much playing "globocop."