What if: A look at how Dems would lead on defense issues

With frustrations mounting over increased violence in Iraq and concerns rising over wasteful Pentagon spending, Democrats are poised to battle unpopular Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should they take control of either chamber of Congress after the Nov. 7 elections.

But do not expect them to leverage the power of the purse to slash wartime funding accounts, which now well exceed $100 billion annually. Any immediate, sharp decrease in funds for Iraq or Afghanistan would surely be perceived as a lack of support for troops, an unpalatable and unwise political tactic for a party that hopes to gain control of the White House in 2008.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters last week that he would not use the spending bill to enact policy on Iraq -- a war he strongly opposes. Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with strong ties to the defense industry, could chair the Defense appropriations panel in the 110th Congress, or possibly even mount a successful campaign for House majority leader. In either slot, he would push for a "change of course" in Iraq -- a strategy that would allow the military to begin to withdraw its troops from the country.

He is joined by several Democrats, including Senate Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Joseph Biden, D-Del., who have publicly clamored for the Bush administration to begin to turn over security of the country to Iraqi forces. "This November election has a far-reaching implication for the prospect for success in Iraq," Biden said this week.

Should they gain the majority, Democrats are not expected to trim overall defense spending, which has grown steadily during the Bush administration, congressional aides and analysts said.

Senior Democrats on the defense committee are not "overly dovish," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Many of the Pentagon's priciest weapons systems, including the Army's Future Combat Systems and the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter, will enter their expensive production phases over the next several years, and Democrats are not likely to target them for significant cuts or cancellations.

Both Murtha and Senate Defense Appropriations ranking member Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, have supported many of the Pentagon's newest weapons programs. And House Armed Services ranking member Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said in a recent interview that he is concerned about the size of the Navy, and views the planned 313-ship naval fleet as too small.

Should Skelton become House Armed Services chairman, he likely would push for more shipbuilding dollars. Several prominent House Democrats on the committee would back increased funding for the Navy, including Rep. Gene Taylor, who hails from shipbuilding-heavy Mississippi and would be in line to take over as chairman of the House Armed Services Projection Forces Subcommittee. "We are a seafaring nation and we've allowed the size of the Navy to slip," Skelton said.

Instead, Democrats would limit cuts in systems they have traditionally eyed suspiciously, such as the missile defense program, the most expensive weapons system on the Pentagon's books and a perennial target by Democrats for cuts. But even missile defense, whose budget tops $10 billion a year, would not be gutted with North Korea looming as a not-so-distant threat.

Skelton said missile defense would be a subject of hearings and investigations should he have the opportunity to take the gavel in the next Congress. That could fall under the purview of an investigations and oversight subcommittee Skelton hopes to stand up to review everything from weapons systems to contracting to the Iraq war.

Meanwhile, a Democratic majority in the House likely would lead to pushes for enhanced healthcare and other benefits for active-duty and reserve troops -- a central area of concern for Skelton and other committee Democrats, who this year battled House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, D-Calif., to halt TRICARE healthcare prescription co-payment increases proposed by the Pentagon. Skelton views expanded benefits for the military, though expensive, as a necessary and vital retention and readiness tool.

In the Senate, the differences are less stark between Levin and senior Republicans on the Armed Services panel. Indeed, Levin has often worked closely on policy matters with outgoing Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Armed Services Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., Warner's presumed successor should Republicans retain control of the Senate.

Both Levin and McCain would take a close look at the costs of weapons systems and defense contracting, though industry has long feared that a McCain chairmanship in particular would lead to prolonged investigations that could ultimately eat into their bottom lines.