Military budget safe no matter who wins in November

A President George W. Bush would boost military spending to a post-Cold War high of more than $300 billion annually, deploy national and battlefield missile defenses under a crash program, and prepare to fight in outer space. He would also develop new conventional weapons and consider sending U.S. forces into Iraq to establish a sanctuary for dissidents.

A President John McCain? He would erect a thick "Star Wars" missile defense system over Russian objections and would stop building nuclear submarines and big bombers. But he would champion aircraft carriers and fighter planes, take a hard line on gays in the military, forbid abortions in military hospitals, try to close excess military bases, and reduce pork barrel spending.

A President Al Gore, for his part, would seek to build a national missile defense without derailing existing arms control agreements, including those banning space-based weapons. He would also continue to finance Cold War bombers and nuclear attack submarines, liberalize Pentagon rules covering gays and abortions, further expand NATO, and push to ban nuclear testing.

And a President Bill Bradley would display his "I'm from Missouri" skepticism toward increasing the Pentagon budget and rushing into another Star Wars defense effort. Moreover, he would resurrect the concept of national service, welcome gays into the military, keep civilians from buying military rifles, and allow military doctors to perform abortions on service women.

How do you predict a commander in chief's likely priorities?

Through their words and votes, Republican presidential candidates Bush and McCain and Democratic hopefuls Gore and Bradley have provided rather detailed outlines of their approaches to defending the nation. Bush's most detailed accounting to date came in his Sept. 23 speech on defense at a South Carolina military school, the Citadel.

"In my first budget" as President, Bush said he would add "a billion dollars in salary increases" for military personnel; provide an unspecified amount more in "targeted bonuses for those with special skills"; and "commit an additional $20 billion to defense R & D [research and development] between the time I take office and 2006."

The next Administration will inherit President Clinton's farewell fiscal 2002 defense budget, which now calls for spending $295 billion on the military. Even if that total remained constant, rather than rise as expected, Bush's promised add-ons would increase his first defense budget well above $300 billion, not counting the additional billions to be spent on nuclear warheads under the Department of Energy's budget.

Bush also said in his Citadel remarks that, in addition to deploying national and theater anti-missile systems "at the earliest possible date," he will prepare the nation to fight in space, an arena his predecessors have avoided for fear of escalating the international arms race.

"In space, we must be able to protect our network of satellites essential to the flow of our commerce and the defense of our country," Bush said. This capability would require developing and deploying futuristic weapons that could duke it out 23,500 miles up, in an airless zone where satellites synchronized to follow the Earth's rotation perform a multitude of military and civilian chores.

Arms control specialists have long warned against launching an arms race in space. They contend that pressure would mount for pre-emptive strikes against military satellites, and that such pressure would lessen the sense of security felt by the growing number of nations that rely on space-based systems for observing, communicating, navigating, and fighting wars on Earth.

Article V of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was ratified by the United States and the former Soviet Union, states that "each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based." In his Citadel speech, Bush said he felt no obligation "to protect arms control agreements signed almost 30 years ago."

One of Bush's top military advisers is Paul Wolfowitz, who was Defense undersecretary for policy during the presidency of the candidate's father, George Bush. Wolfowitz, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has long called for the U.S. military to take more-direct action to help dissident groups topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In an article in Foreign Affairs last spring, for example, Wolfowitz and his co-author, former Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, D-N.Y., wrote that "the United States should be prepared to commit ground forces to protect a sanctuary in southern Iraq where the opposition could safely mobilize." Given his reliance on Wolfowitz for national security guidance, a President Bush would almost certainly give serious consideration to the sanctuary proposal.

Bradley, Gore, and McCain have all promised in their presidential election campaigns to field a strong military and improve the quality of life for men and women in uniform and for veterans. But their votes during the six years all three served together in the Senate (1987-92) show that they have many significant differences over how best to provide for the common defense.

Here is where they stood, with dates of their votes in parentheses, on major military questions that they would face again as President:

During the Reagan Administration:

• Weapons testing in outer space. Should Congress forbid the President to test anti-ballistic missile weapons in space, thus jeopardizing the 1972 ABM treaty, without prior congressional approval? McCain, no; Bradley and Gore, yes. (Sept. 17, 1987)
• SALT II limits. Should Congress require the President to stick to the sublimits on strategic missiles, such as how many could carry multiple warheads, that the United States and Soviet Union agreed to in 1979 in a treaty not yet ratified by the Senate? McCain, no; Bradley and Gore, yes. (Oct. 2, 1987)
• Covert intelligence oversight. Should the President be required to notify Congress of all covert activities before they are launched, except on "rare occasions when time is of the essence?" McCain, no; Bradley and Gore, yes. (March 15, 1988) During the Bush Administration:
• Star Wars spending. Should the annual funding for this missile defense effort be reduced substantially? McCain, no; Bradley, yes; Gore, no. (July 27, 1989)
• B-2 bomber. Should its financial support be cut off? McCain, no; Bradley, yes; Gore, no. (Sept. 26, 1989) On Oct. 15, 1990, McCain joined Bradley in voting against expanding the B-2 fleet beyond the 15 aircraft already paid for. Gore supported the expansion.
• Desecration of the flag. Should the Constitution be amended to empower Congress and the states to prohibit physical desecration of the American flag despite the First Amendment guaranteeing the right of free expression? McCain, yes; Bradley and Gore, no. (Oct. 19, 1989)
• Going to war for oil. Should the United States go to war to protect foreign oil or the independence of another nation, or for both reasons? A joint resolution posed this question in 1991, and it authorized President Bush to use "all necessary means" to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait. McCain, yes; Bradley, no; Gore, yes. (Jan. 12, 1991)
• Women in combat. Should female military pilots be allowed to fly into harm's way? McCain, no; Bradley and Gore, yes. (July 31, 1991)
• Money for dismantling Soviet weapons. Is it worth the investment of taxpayer dollars? McCain, Bradley, and Gore, yes. (Nov. 25, 1991)
• Guns vs. butter. Should the congressional budget agreement be changed so money appropriated for the Pentagon can be spent on domestic programs? McCain, no; Bradley and Gore, yes. (March 26, 1992)
• Comprehensive ban on all nuclear testing. Should the United States stop all nuclear warhead testing for nine months as a step toward an international ban? McCain, no; Bradley, yes; Gore, unrecorded (Sept. 18, 1992), but he voted yes on a similar question on Sept. 24, 1987.

During the Clinton Administration:

Gore became Vice President in 1993 and has cast few recorded votes. This is how McCain and Bradley compared on key military issues until Bradley left the Senate at the end of its 1996 session:

• National Service Corps. Should teen-agers receive federal grants toward college by performing community services after graduating from high school? McCain, no; Bradley, yes. (Aug. 3, 1993)
• Gays in the military. Should the policy on gays be left up to the President? McCain, no; Bradley, yes. (Sept. 9, 1993)
• Seawolf nuclear attack submarines. Should the Navy continue to build such expensive attack subs given the diminution of the Russian undersea threat? McCain and Bradley, no. (Oct. 14, 1993)
• Presidential freedom to conduct military operations. Should Congress shut off money for military operations in Somalia by a certain date unless the President asks for and receives authorization from Congress? McCain and Bradley, no. (Oct. 15, 1993) McCain and Bradley also refused to limit the Administration's freedom of action in Haiti. (June 29, 1994)
• Controlling military-type rifles. Should the manufacture and possession of these weapons by civilians be outlawed? McCain, no; Bradley, yes. (Nov. 17, 1993)
• Arming Muslims in Bosnia. Should the United States ignore an international arms embargo to help the side it favors in a civil war? McCain and Bradley, yes. (July 1, 1994)
• Trade embargo against Cuba. Should it be stiffened? McCain and Bradley, yes. (March 5, 1996)
• Gays' employment rights. Should the 1964 Civil Rights Act be broadened to prevent employers from discriminating against gays? McCain, no; Bradley, yes. (Sept. 10, 1996)

Since Bradley left the Senate, McCain has voted for the treaty banning the production or use of chemical weapons; opposed an amendment to impose a three-year moratorium on further expansion of NATO; favored male and female recruits living in the same barracks and training together; backed the Air Force F-22 fighter; led several losing fights to close surplus military bases; denounced military construction projects he regarded as "pork"; refused to go along with legislation to prevent the President from committing ground troops to Kosovo; and voted again last year against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

None of the four presidential candidates has pledged to make deep cuts in the Pentagon budget. All in all, Bush comes across as going the farthest to give guns a higher priority than butter, while Bradley seems to be the most careful in that regard. McCain would be hardest on so-called "legacy weapons" designed to fight the Cold War, and Gore would probably fight the hardest to save existing arms control agreements and to negotiate new ones. In short, the generals and admirals don't have to worry about their budgets being gutted by their next commander in chief, no matter who wins.