NEW YORK -- With America facing no significant military threats, who would have predicted that US defense policy would become an issue in the presidential race? But suddenly, Pentagon spending and military readiness are being debated, and millions of Americans are bewildered - with good reason.
With the Pentagon consuming about half the money Congress votes to spend each year, a debate of our defense budget is certainly in order. The problem is that George Bush and Al Gore, each zealously wishing to be the ''toughest'' of the tough guys, are falling over each other explaining how they would spend more on defense when they really should be showing us how we can spend less.
The truth is that the defense budget can be cut $60 billion, roughly 20 percent, without jeopardizing national security.
America's military is at the ready for the same mission - fighting two major regional wars simultaneously - as it was during the Cold War, which ended over a decade ago. This ''two-war'' strategy is regarded as outmoded by most military analysts, including two independent panels established by Congress.
By abandoning the two-war strategy in favor of a ''one-war-plus'' approach, under which the United States would be prepared to fight one major regional war while also maintaining a presence in Europe, the Persian Gulf, and Asia, and the capability for a Bosnia-type mission - the United States could reduce its total force from 2.4 million people to 2 million. This would allow the country to bring home 75,000 troops from Europe and 25,000 from Asia, leaving European nations responsible for providing a larger share of their own defense needs and leaving 75,000 US military people in Asia.
Further savings can be realized by building fewer next-generation weapons. Despite its gaping edge over all nations, America continues rushing forward with expensive new weapons, like the F-22 fighter, the V-22 Tilt Rotor Osprey, the Virginia Class submarine, the Crusader artillery system, Commanche helicopters, and others. These weapons were designed to fight the collapsed Soviet Union. If the Pentagon adopted a more realistic purchasing strategy by buying the current generation of weapon systems, it could actually modernize its force more rapidly at lower cost.
Finally, by reducing our nuclear arsenal from 7,500 to 1,000 warheads, by eliminating other nuclear warheads in our arsenal, and by not deploying a national missile defense system, America could further reduce Pentagon spending while still maintaining the ability to annihilate any adversary.
A 20 percent cut in America's defense spending may sound severe, but consider this: When inflation is taken into account, the Pentagon budget today is still at 90 percent of the level it was during the Cold War spending. America also is spending well over twice as much on defense as the combined defense spending of Russia, China, and all potential adversaries identified by the Pentagon.
When the military budgets of US allies are included in these calculations, the picture becomes even more favorable to America. Our NATO allies spend three times more on defense than Russia. Israel spends as much as Iran and Iraq combined. South Korea spends nine times more on defense than North Korea. And Japan spends more on its military than China.
These facts are readily available. Yet it is taboo on the campaign trial to challenge the Joint Chiefs' assertion that the US military is woefully underfunded. Like The belief is entrenched among politicians that accusations of being ''weak on defense'' will torpedo most political candidates.
As a result, we have a flock of politicians, including the two presidential candidates who, ironically, are not tough enough to tell the American people the truth about Pentagon overspending.
Lawrence J. Korb, who was assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, is vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
