-Caveat Lector-
>From the Federation of American Scientists site
Americans on Defense Spending - A Study of US Public Attitudes:
Report of Findings
Program on International Policy Attitudes
January 19, 1996
Steven Kull, Principal Investigator
Contents:
Executive Summary
Introduction
Key Findings
Conclusion
Appendix A - Demographic Variations
Appendix B - How the Study Was Conducted
Appendix C - Questionnaire and Results
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the end of the Cold War, American policymakers have debated about the
proper role of US military forces in the world and the requisite level of
US defense spending. Budgetary pressures have increased the demand for
defense cuts, but the Clinton administration has said defense spending is
'off the table' in the current budget negotiations, and the Republican
Congress has pushed for increases in defense spending. Meanwhile, the
public has been largely a silent partner in this debate.
To find out more about public attitudes on defense spending in general, as
well as the specific question of budget cuts, the Program on International
Policy Attitudes carried our a study that included:
a nationwide poll of 1,207 adults conducted November 18-25, 1995 (margin of
error +/-3-4%) focus groups in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Kalamazoo,
Michigan a review of existing polling data The key findings of the study
are as follows:
1. A large majority of Americans favors a strong defense. This majority
feels that the US has global interests that need to be protected with a
world-wide military presence, and wants to maintain existing US commitments
to protect other countries. Most Americans have a positive feeling toward
the US military.
2. When Americans think about US defense preparation in the context of
potential threats, most Americans propose a level of preparation far lower
than the present US level. Asked to prescribe US defense spending levels
relative to its potential enemies, an overwhelming majority sets levels far
below actual spending levels. A majority rejects the notion (central to
current US force planning) that the US needs to be prepared to fight two
major regional wars simultaneously without the help of allies.
3. When Americans think about defense preparation in a budgetary context, a
modest majority favors significant cuts in the defense budget--the median
respondent feels that the defense budget can be cut 10% The majority feels
that defense should be cut as part of efforts to balance the budget. If the
President and Congress decide to make deep cuts of up to 20% in defense
spending, a very strong majority would support them.
4. Support for cuts in defense spending is sustained by the belief that the
US military is adequately prepared for existing threats, a lack of concern
about Russia, suspicions that the defense establishment and Congress are
promoting excessive defense spending, the belief that the current level of
defense spending weakens the US economy, and opposition to the US carrying
the burden of a 'world policeman' role.
5. To reduce US defense spending, while still maintaining US security
commitments and its global interests, very strong majorities want to put
more emphasis on multilateral approaches to security. Strong majorities
would like to strengthen the UN's collective security role and feel that
doing so will diminish demands on the US. They are also generally willing
to contribute US troops to UN-sponsored collective security efforts.
INTRODUCTION
The end of the Cold War and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union has
forced a reevaluation of the role of US military forces and the requisite
level of US defense spending. With the demise of the Soviet threat and
growing budgetary pressures, many Americans looked forward to a 'peace
dividend'--a substantial cut in defense spending.
Indeed, defense budgets were cut for several years in a row, coming down
nearly 25% (in adjusted dollars) since 1989. Eventually, though, voices in
Congress insisted that the cuts had gone far enough. There were warnings
that the readiness of US troops was being eroded. Resurgent militarism in
Russia as well as the frightening face of terrorism created anxiety. For
some, the Gulf War was evidence of the continuing need for hefty US forces
and large defense budgets to support them. Above all, it was argued, the US
needs to guard against unforeseen threats. And then there was the concern
about jobs being lost to defense cuts.
Others offered counter-arguments, though, suggesting that the US could
still cut defense further: Despite the resurgence of militarism in Russia
in some minority parties, the Russian government had cut back its military
much further than the US; While terrorism was a problem, it could not be
addressed by large defense budgets; The Gulf War had only shown how
overwhelmingly superior US military forces are. Also, it was argued, no
serious threat to the US to justify defense budgets that were still larger,
in constant dollars, than US defense budgets for much of the Cold War.
In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton campaigned on a platform calling for
further defense cuts. However, soon after coming into office the Clinton
administration carried out the "Bottom Up Review" which concluded that
defense spending should be sustained at approximately current levels. The
rationale for this position was a newly-established criterion for sizing US
forces: it called for the US to have the capability to fight two regional
wars simultaneously, similar to the Gulf War, without the help of allies.
Some objected that this requirement was excessive: the probability that two
such conflicts would occur simultaneously was exceedingly remote and that
it was time for the US to rely more on its allies rather than playing the
role of world policeman by itself. But with bipartisan support, the two-war
requirement became policy and increasingly became the core rationale for
defense sizing.
After the Republican victories in the 1994 midterm elections, the Clinton
administration moved further away from its original support for defense
cuts. In December 1994, it added $25 billion to the six-year defense budget
and then, in the State of the Union address in early 1995, President
Clinton announced that defense cuts would be 'off the table' in the effort
to arrive at a new budget and to cut the deficit.
The newly-Republican Congress pushed for increases in defense spending as
called for in the Republican Contract With America. Congressional
Republicans added $7 billion to the Defense Appropriation bill beyond what
was proposed by the Pentagon. The Clinton administration considered vetoing
the bill primarily because of this $7 billion add-on, but did ultimately
allow it to become law in December 1995 influenced in part by Clinton's
desire to get Congressional approval for sending US troops to Bosnia. He
did, however, veto the defense authorization bill that spelled out how the
money would be spent.
Implicit in the debates about defense spending has been a larger debate
about America's role in the post Cold War world. Does the US still have
global interests justifying a global military presence? During the Cold War
the US made numerous commitments to protect countries from aggression:
should the US continue to maintain these commitments? Should the US size
its forces on the assumption that it will fulfill its commitments by itself
or as part of a multilateral operation? The Bottom-Up Review effectively
answered these questions, saying that US forces should be sized so that the
US has the capability to protect its global interests and to protect other
countries by itself and in more than one theater at once.
But how does the public feel about these larger questions and about their
implications for the budget? The public has been largely a silent partner
in this debate, despite the significant consequences to the public's
interests both in terms of its security and the wrenching trade-offs that
are part of the battle over the budget.
To find out more about public attitudes on these issues the Program on
International Policy Attitudes carried out a study of American public
attitudes on US defense spending. It included:
<<remainder of {long} article @
http://www.fas.org/man/docs/pipapoll.htm
------- AND -------
For anyone who's interested, here's a nifty page with military personnel
statistics. The VERY FIRST link has a graph that shows the precipitous
drop in strength around 1991-92, beginning in 1988-89.
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm
Anyone who wants to can send this along to that fellow from Oklahoma,
quoted in a previous post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
