MILITARY-READINESS PLANS RAISE OTHER KEY ISSUES

In all of the jockeying over balancing the federal budget, most of the attention has been put on the future of welfare programs and entitlements along with some minor tax cuts. Meanwhile, military spending is projected to stay about even with current levels into the next century, and some analysts wonder if that is prudent.

Clearly, the United States must maintain a readiness level in military strength that matches the nation's role as the leader in world affairs. The standard for military might has been set at the ability to fight two major regional conflicts at the same time.

Under the latest Defense Department proposals, more cuts will be made in troop strength and bases. In the past, these cuts have produced howls of protest, mainly from political leaders in states hit hardest. California, for example, is insisting that new cuts be "equitable," meaning the Golden State wants other states to share equally in any future base closings. Never mind that the inequity originally occurred when California's congressional clout was used to open more bases in that state than were really needed.

Gen. John Shalikashvili, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, says it will be possible to cut another 100,000 people from the 1.4 million active-duty and 900,000 reserve forces without damaging the ability to meet the two-regional-war test. This is because military efficiency has improved, the general says. It can certainly be hoped that a nation that has grown accustomed to military overspending is, at last, benefiting from prudent financial decisions in the Pentagon.

While the nation's policy -- the ability to fight two wars -- continues, there remain questions about which two conflicts it should pick. Although the spotlight of media attention has certainly shifted, there are still those who wonder about the U.S. military presence in Bosnia. Weren't the troops supposed to be home long ago?

And the military has another important issue to contend with: the problems caused by having women serve alongside men. Current efforts to ignore the rules for women -- the same way they have been ignored in the past for men -- misses the point that the rules serve a purpose and should be strictly enforced for everyone. The question of whether women should be in combat roles hasn't been fully resolved, and continuing scandals may force the Pentagon to take another look.