Washington — Is it fear, panic, disappointment, shock or all of the above?
It is all of the above, and it is coming from unlikely sources: the U.S. military and its defense contractors.
President George W. Bush, like most Republican candidates, received the overwhelming support of America's fighting men and women and the contractors who supply them. It is a tradition that goes back to the Vietnam War era, when many service people linked the Democrats to the anti-war protesters. Now, however, they are having second thoughts. The president has begun a top-to-bottom review of the military, but his intent is clear: His administration is cutting back. Sources tell us that there will be fewer missions abroad, fewer people in the military, fewer bases and fewer planes, tanks, missiles and ships.
There already are fewer defense contracts, and sizable defense-industry layoffs have already commenced. The cutbacks are so pervasive that in a recent gathering of "Beltway Bandits" as Washington, D.C., defense contractors are dubbed we listened as they asked each other whether there were any openings for "some very good people that we are about to lay off." The answers came back: "No, we were about to ask you the same thing."
Looking for homes for displaced employees was not all they had in common. They all had voted for George W. Bush. They had expected the president to increase supplemental contracts by executive order when he assumed office. They had expected to see increases in the defense budget. To say that they are in a state of shock is an understatement.
This news may not be greatly upsetting to most Americans, but think again. The administration's unilateral cutting of defense spending just as the U.S. economy is slowing down could cinch a recession. And this is not the old guns-or-butter debate. It is not even a guns-or-tax-cut debate. Rather, it is more philosophically based. The president simply does not share the global view held by every president since Herbert Hoover. Bush would say that he is no isolationist, but neither is he an interventionist.
The first test is already looming. When Yugoslavia began coming apart and regional conflicts erupted, America and its European allies took action, albeit belatedly. Bosnia was the site of the largest conflict, but more recently, Kosovo became the center of attention. Through it all, the one small, fledgling country in the area that was declared inviolate was Macedonia because it is the gateway to Greece.
But now Macedonia is under attack by ethnic Albanians. Will Bush intervene? Will NATO intervene? And if not there, where? That question is much discussed in America's military by enlisted personnel and officers alike. It is being asked by those retired officers now employed by the "Beltway Bandits" because the top-to-bottom review is about more than the reallocation of money. It is about direction, commitments and geo-political philosophy.
Meanwhile, the military-industrial establishment is in disarray, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower's warnings about that establishment notwithstanding, this situation is not beneficial for the nation. Cutbacks in this sector and at this time cannot be good for our security or our economy.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.