Defense Spending

To The Editors of The Crimson:

While members of Congress sound off loudly about food stamps, housing, medicare, transportation, public health, interest rates, etc., they offer almost total obedience to the actions of the Armed Services Committees. In other words they approve the budgets of the complicated Defense request for funds with little debate while at the same time expressing themselves loudly concerning funds for the entities mentioned above. They understand these items but have no choice but to approve items in the defense budget because they don't have information that could lead to informed debate.

Is this trust in the Armed Services Committees, of both houses justified? Probably not. The leading advocates for change, the "Congressional military reform group" motivated by Senator Hart of Colorado, feels that defense priorities must be brought into line with what history tells is important in winning and therefore deterring wars. The senator, a leader of his group, in an article in the New York Times Magazine in February, states his belief that the current "fire power attrition" strategy first used in World War I is the choice of Defense in fighting wars of the future. The group feels this is wrong because success depends on superiority in numbers in both equipment and manpower, and the United States possesses neither when compared to the USSR. The group believes that to win a war with the USSR we must develop the strategy of "maneuver warfare." Adoption of this strategy would reader the fiscal year 1983 and subsequent year budgets obsolete.

If these people are conflict, and the tactics employed in Korea and in Vietnam tend to show that "fire power-attrition" is questionable, something should be done to bring this matter to the attention of as many voters as possible before Administration budgets commit this country to more of the same.

The outlook for change in Congress is not bright. Over the years the Defense Department has developed a cozy relationship with the Armed Services Committees and the Appropriations Committees of both houses. These people do not encourage other members of Congress to play the role of overseer. Further, they believe in what they are doing and are reluctant to venture forth on uncharted waters.

An informed public can force an examination and the media must assume the role of educator. People must insist that military budgets are not sacrosanct. The public must insist that military budgets be more thoroughly examined by Congress. It would be tragic if the nation spends $1.5 trillion for defense over the next few years only to learn that the nation prepared for the wrong war. That is what can happen if the majority of the members of Congress, the public and the press continue to view the publicity given to exotic systems such as the B-1 bomber, the MX missile and its deployment scheme, and the nuclear carriers as evidence that the defense budget has been rigorously examined by Congress. That is never so Congress trusts the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. There is reason to fear that the trust is misplaced. Voters must take the initiative in forcing a review before the present arms buildup is in full swing. H. H. Test   Bethesda, Md.

The writer is a retired civil servant and Pentagon official.