In recent years, there has been some talk about increasing defense spending. People have recognized that U.S. commitments abroad and our deployment of troops in peacekeeping operations have drained the military of resources, and most politicians courting your vote have pledged to increase military expenditures.

Despite budget hawks who clamor that our military already has enough money, it is apparent that we need to increase defense spending to replenish stores depleted in Desert Storm and Yugoslavia. Also, the armed services need more money to attract new men and women to serve our nation.

The need for more personnel may seem strange, but over the summer I watched a documentary that illustrated the harsh times on which our military has fallen. Navy ships left port so undermanned that their ability to defend themselves in an emergency was in question.

In one extreme circumstance, an aircraft carrier lacked enough air traffic controllers to have them on duty around the clock.

If an incoming storm reduced visibility during the day, they had to go and wake a flight officer up. In this instance, depleted manpower was not only embarrassing, but dangerous.

The Navy is not the only arm suffering from a lack of personnel. According to CNN, the Army is going to fall short of this year’s recruitment goal of 74,000.

You might be misled into thinking that our military would be brainstorming new ideas to attract recruits.

Unfortunately for our armed services, the brass feel that a new slogan is the cure for thinning ranks. In Monday’s USA Today, it was reported that the Army is considering a new jingle to help boost recruitment. Apparently being all that you can be is not getting enough young men and women in uniform.

The problem with our woefully inadequate personnel structure stems from a number of reasons, chiefly the crystal ball our policy makers use to decide budgetary matters.

The cornerstone of current force projections is the Quadrennial Defense Review of May 1997, which was authored by Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

Now two years old, it projected a downsizing of our military to cut active personnel to 1.4 million by 2003. This is down from 1.5 at the time the report was compiled. While that many people in uniform may sound considerable, keep that in perspective with the 2.1 million active soldiers we had in 1989.

At that time we were at the height of a revitalized Cold War, and our forces were not actively participating in any conflict. The lightning quick victory of Desert Storm was possible only because we had a large standing army. This is in stark contrast to our recent operations in Kosovo where we had to call up reserve personnel to maintain a modest number of fighters and bombers launching operations from well-established bases.

When the Quadrennial Defense Review was written, our forces were not engaged in any sustained conflicts. It was assumed that more cuts would not hamper our military’s ability. Kosovo showed that our military has been cut too far to meet security obligations abroad.

Given our wide range of vital interests, it is obvious we need to increase military expenditures.

The isolationist viewpoint we adopted after the collapse of the Soviet Union is ill-suited to the demands of a global economy. We are subject to problems we have previously ignored.

We need to be engaged. Witness the billions of dollars in aid we send to bail out the economies of Latin America and Asia just because a collapse over there would seriously harm our economy.

According to the Department of Defense, the military budget has shrunk from a high of 400 billion dollars in 1985 to 250 billion today.

While the numbers show a reduction of 38 percent, the reduction is much greater when one considers it as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Over the past 12 years our GDP has expanded considerably, while the military budget has been slashed every year.

But before we throw any money at the military, we should abandon traditional concepts of military superiority that demand huge expenditures in conventional weapons systems. A revolution in military affairs, in which new technology is used in conjunction with radical new concepts on how to wage war, is the solution.

The debate over appropriations for the new F-22 Raptor stealth fighter are a case in point. Cruise missiles allow us to strike with impunity and risk no American lives, while every plane we send up puts another American in harms way.

Reconverted bombers can launch a dozen cruise missiles, and the role of the F-22 should be to defend those weapons platforms from airborne attack. The number purchased should reflect that, and not some outmoded thinking.

The idea of risking a 60 million dollar plane to strafe infantry in the hinterlands is ludicrous, but any solution will cost money. And that is what the military needs more of.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.