WASHINGTON -- The steep increases in U.S. defense budgets under President George W. Bush have largely failed to strengthen the nation's security since the 9/11 attacks, and the proposed $230 billion fiscal year 2005 budget is no exception, according to a task force of nine national-security experts.

In a new report released Monday, the task force charges that some of the most expensive items in the budget have little or nothing to do with the threats the United States confronts in the world today.

"Currently we are wasting large sums on the wrong forces for the wrong occasions," the report concludes. "It is a mistake to believe that increasing the Pentagon budget alone will guarantee our safety."

The task force calls for a more integrated approach to determining defense priorities that includes non-military--such as economic assistance and peacekeeping--as well as strictly military programs.

The report, "A Unified Security Budget for the United States," concludes that some $51 billion dollars of the proposed 2005 budget could be saved by reallocating funding within military accounts, and the savings could be used on non-military initiatives that could substantially boost overall security.

"Cutting the Comanche (helicopter) program was a good start," said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information (CDI), citing one weapon which the Bush administration has already said it will cut from the budget.

"But our report identifies ten other programs, including the F-22 fighter and DDX destroyer, that could be safely cut or reconfigured to free up resources for other neglected security priorities, such as diplomatic operations, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nonproliferation, and port container inspection," he said.

The 23-page report, co-sponsored by CDI, the Project for Defense Alternatives, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and Foreign Policy in Focus, among others, comes amid growing public concern over buildup of unprecedented fiscal deficits and the impact of the rapidly rising defense budget.

From 2000 to 2004, the Pentagon's budget has increased by more than 50 percent, making it comparable to the world's next 25 biggest military spenders combined, according to the Center for Arms Control. Moreover, the 2005 proposal does not include expenditures for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is spending nearly $70 billion this year alone.

With Federal Reserve Chairman warning recently that future Social Security benefits may have to be cut, many lawmakers, including Republicans, are insisting that no program should be immune from reductions. In mid-February, House Speaker Dennis Hastert himself declared all parts of the budget "on the table" for cuts, including the military--a statement that apparently contributed to the Pentagon's decision to abruptly cancel the Army's long-running Comanche helicopter program.

In that light, the task force, which also included defense experts at Citizens for Global Solutions, the Center for American Progress, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called for a major reassessment of other expensive weapons systems whose usefulness in the 'war on terrorism' and other likely security challenges is highly questionable.

The nature of today's threats, according to the report, should, among other things, permit the Pentagon to reduce the pace of investment in the next generation of conventional weapons, such as fighters, helicopters, ships, submarines, and tanks, where the U.S. already enjoys a substantial technological edge over any conceivable adversary. Most of these weapons were designed for war against the Soviet Union.

In addition, the report calls for stopping deployment of the national missile defense (NMD) system until the technology is proven. "So far, despite spending $75 billion, we have not found any that works, and we cannot plan our security around doing so," according to the report, which notes that NMD is the single biggest item in the 2005 defense budget.

The report also calls for reducing the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, closing unnecessary military bases, and overhauling the Pentagon's financial management operations.

If these steps are taken, as much as $56 billion could be saved in 2005 alone, according to the report.

Some of those savings should be used for other military priorities, from buying improved flak jackets and body armor for U.S. troops in hostile or combat environments to realigning U.S. forces to better prepare them for likely missions, including counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, and stability and reconstruction operations, which are particularly relevant to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report suggests that such efforts could cost around $5 billion annually.

But the administration and Congress also need urgently to adopt a more comprehensive approach to security and fighting terrorism, according to the report.

"Despite the administration's promises of a comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism, its budget concentrates seven times as many resources on the military as on all non-military security tools combined, including homeland security," according to Miriam Pemberton, peace and security editor at Foreign Policy in Focus.

In particular, the report calls for reallocating some $6 billion to strengthen key non-military programs, including diplomacy, international communication, nonproliferation programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar initiative to help fund disarmament in Russia and find alternative employment for its weapons and nuclear scientists, and support for international peace and stability operations of the kind that has been working in Afghanistan and is now being put together in Haiti.

In addition, the administration and Congress should consider sharply increasing development assistance for poor nations by as much as $10 billion a year in order to address much of the hopelessness and despair that can breed terrorism over time, particularly, in so-called "failed states."

The report notes that Bush himself spoke eloquently on the link between development assistance and security at an international conference in Mexico in 2002 but has subsequently failed to push Congress into appropriating the funds.

Finally, the report calls for increases in homeland security funding similar to those recommended by a 2003 Council on Foreign Relations Task Force chaired by former Sen. Warren Rudman. More money for emergency first-responders, including local police and fire departments, and port security, should both be treated urgently, according to the report.

© Copyright 2003 OneWorld.net

###