| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ADMIRAL QUESTIONS BUSH DEFENSE SPENDING:Business Group Seeks "Sensible Priorities"
Shanahan, whose career in the Navy spanned 35 years, commanded the US Second Fleet, which was responsible for naval operations in the Atlantic Ocean. He also served as Commander of NATO's Strike Fleet Atlantic. Among other positions he has held since his retirement from the Navy, Shanahan served for three years as director of the Center for Defense Information, a D.C.-based nonprofit research institute specializing in defense and foreign policy issues. It therefore might seem surprising to find that someone with this background now presents public speeches calling for cutting back US military spending in favor of other domestic programs. "The $2.1 trillion fiscal year 2003 federal budget that starts October 1 includes $396.2 billion for national defense," he said. "That's $1.08 billion every day. But a significant part of the budget is for weapons designed to fight past wars, and to implement NMD [the National Missile Defense system]." He said he went on record in 1996 as saying the US military would have to "take leave of old ideas of what constitutes 'military defense'. Back then, I said our greatest threat is from terrorists, and our massive military foces have little utility against such threats. We have to use diplomacy and economic power to eliminate the conditions that create terrorism. "No one paid attention then. I was shunted aside by a bureaucracy unwilling to think outside the box, in the mistaken belief that more money means more security. Just the opposite is true." He lamented that the US spends large sums to train people to fight, but very little to train people to be peacekeepers. The scale of projected US military spending over the next ten years, according to Shanahan, will mean less funding available for schools, highways, the infrastructure and the environment. "It is not unpatriotic to question defense spending," he said. "It's simply the right thing to do. The President has skewed our national security infrastructure. The State Department's budget has been reduced. Their budget is only 22 [spending] days versus defense's 365."
He noted that these spending trends are long-standing. "If we hadn't shortchanged these programs and agencies over the years, 9/11 might not have happened," he charged. Despite the huge segment of the budget allotted for defense, Shanahan asked, "How do they know $390 billion is enough?" He charged that the GAO [Government Accounting Office] says the Department of Defense does not know with any degree of certainty how much money it has. "[Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld faces a dilemma. He has to plan 20 years ahead, but he doesn't know where he is [fiscally]. This would be untenable in the real business world." Shanahan maintained, "Militarizing foreign policy is totally inappropriate to a democracy. The military should be an instrument of policy, not a shaper of it. A successful 'homeland defense' should be 'people first, ideas second, weapons third'." During a question period, Shanahan was asked how much of the Department of Defense budget is being spent to protect the oil supply. "We're really paying $110 a barrel," he quipped to laughter. Another person questioned how the military budget could be cut, considering how many jobs might be affected. Shanahan agreed it was very difficult to make such decisions. "Pork money is our necessary overhead to assure jobs stay in [congressional] districts," he said. "There's got to be a time when you ought to be able to put national interests ahead of local [ones]. Something's going to have to give, or we're going to spend ourselves into bankruptcy just like the Soviet Union." "How did things get like this?" someone asked. "Why don't we know all this?" "The American people do not understand because no one is telling them," said Shanahan. "It is kind of mind-boggling to pore through all this stuff." In response to another question, Shanahan predicted that the NMD will collapse. He noted that Rumsfeld had killed the Crusader, "but it's not yet clear if it will stay dead. Asked if Americans are stupid or ignorant, he responded, "Both. Too many don't read the newspapers. Our security depends on a well-educated, healthy citizenry. Our children should be able to compete in a global economy." Baltimore Priorities
The co-chairs are: Linda Black (Mt. Airy Bicycles), Gayle Economos (GVE Media/Public Relations), Sandy Frank (A. Frank & Sons), Gary Gillespie (American Friends Service Committee), Rebecca Hoffberger (American Visionary Art Museum), Sidney Hollander, Robert Katzoff, Susan and Sam Macfarlane, Dan Mendelson (Enterprise Social Investment Corp.), Ted Rouse and Jim Slattery (Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse), Nick Sheridan (Cuisine Catering), Richard Torgeson (Progressive Asset Management), and Richard Ullrich (Marianist Office of Justice and Peace). The president of the New York-based national office of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities is Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. In addition to a business advisory committee with such members as Paul Newman, Adlai E. Stevenson III, and Ted Turner, it has a military advisory committee than includes, in addition to Admiral Shanahan, Admiral Stansfield Turner (former CIA director) and Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense). For more information, call Gary Ferdman, executive director, at 212-243-3416; or email him at garyblsp@aol.com.
Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. All rights reserved. We invite your comments, criticisms and suggestions. Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent. This story was published on June 5, 2002. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||