Gore, Bush stake out positions on defense management

Tanks don't handle like Ferraris; aircraft carriers take forever to turn around; and the Pentagon bureaucracy often is immovable, especially by such ephemeral animals as Presidents. Making major changes to the armed forces is politically thankless and sometimes plain impossible, as Bill Clinton found out in 1993 when he failed to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in uniform.

Yet in 2000, both candidates are pledging reforms unnerving to the defense establishment. Perhaps predictably, Al Gore, having urged Clinton on in 1993, has vowed to again push for a homosexual's right to serve, delighting core Democratic constituencies while dismaying conservatives in and out of uniform. More surprising, although less well-publicized, is that George W. Bush has gone beyond the traditional Republican rhetoric of a strong, well-funded defense and embraced the "revolution in military affairs"-a controversial vision of a high-tech, high-speed future force that challenges the way the military has equipped and organized itself for 50 years.

"To raise procurement budgets across the board, when we haven't taken a hard look at what the military should look like in the 21st century . . . would be irresponsible," said Condoleeza Rice, a top Bush adviser. Bush, she hinted, might reform the Defense Department more radically "than any President since Harry Truman," who established the department in the first place. And, echoing Bush's September speech at the Citadel military school in South Carolina, Rice emphasized not an immediate buildup, but an intensive research program that would allow the Pentagon to "skip a generation" in weapons technology.

Such talk unsettles the defense industry. Normally allied with Republicans, weapons builders believe they have finally domesticated the Democrats-the Clinton Administration has boosted defense spending steadily, if modestly, over the past few budgets-and have no enthusiasm for radical change. Bush's pledge of an additional $20 billion over five years for research on future weapons is welcome, but not at the expense of weapons being bought today-the very generation of weapons Bush wants to "skip over." One industry official called Bush's ideas outlined at the Citadel "a well-intended but a somewhat over-simplistic [approach]." With the defense industry just recovering from dramatic post-Cold War cuts in spending, added another official, it "cannot afford another `procurement holiday.' "

Nor can the military, say some observers, because equipment bought during the Reagan Administration's buildup is wearing out. Although the Clinton Administration has pushed hard for "leap-ahead technology" of the kind Bush advocates, "in some cases you get systems aging to the point where it's necessary to replace them with what you've got," said one defense official.

Cynics say that Bush will inevitably have to back off the ambitious program outlined by his advisers. But Bush backer and Reagan defense official Richard Perle insists the governor is personally committed. "I would expect him to drive quite hard," Perle said. "Some of the ideas obviously originated with his advisers, but he has taken this on. From the very earliest discussions, he was excited."

Although Bush is embracing radical reform, the technological and bureaucratic arcana of military reform seem more a natural match for Gore and his "reinventing government" program. Such defense visionaries as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., and retired Navy Adm. Bill Owens have been linked with Gore, but the Vice President's focus has tended to stay on broad policy areas rather than the specifics of strategy, hardware, and war fighting.

"Gore's principal expressed interest in defense policy during his years as Vice President have really been extensions of his other concerns: arms control, technology, reinventing government," said Loren Thompson, a consultant and analyst at the Lexington Institute, a defense-issues think tank in Arlington, Va. For example, Gore's "reinvention" assault on red tape has freed up significant sums to develop and purchase weapons-$7 billion saved at Defense in 1993-98, according to a General Accounting Office report-but its direct impact has been strictly on the administrative side of the department, not on the fighting force. For Gore, defense issues seem to be less an interest in themselves than means to other ends.

That attitude shows strongly in the Vice President's cautious approach to national missile defense. Bush, with his party steeped in Reaganite visions of "Star Wars," has embraced building anti-missile systems "at the earliest possible date," whatever the consequences for the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Gore, by contrast, must uncomfortably balance missile defense with his long-standing interest in arms control. Gore's stand on the issue has therefore been more of a crouch, taking cover behind Clinton's promise to decide on a missile defense system this year-now tentatively scheduled for the fall and uncomfortably close to the election.

But on the other high-profile military issue, gays and lesbians, it is Gore who has a clear position-end the ban-and a strong base of support-the Left. Bush, meanwhile, balances awkwardly in the middle. The governor has endorsed the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell," which allows closeted gays to serve, but in constant peril of harassment or ouster, a compromise that pleases neither the Left nor the Right. "There is some disappointment" with Bush's stance, said Elaine Donnelly, a leading conservative activist. By contrast, liberals lavish praise on Gore, whom they see as more committed to their cause than Clinton-even as they concede that it would take a careful legislative campaign and a sea change in Congress to repeal a ban now enshrined in law. David Smith, a spokesman for a leading gay-advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, said: "I doubt very seriously that this would be the first, second, [or even] third thing out of the box [in a Gore Administration]. We would not repeat 1993."

National Journal staff correspondent James Kitfield contributed to this article.