MILITARY SPENDING

In this post-Cold War era, it is too easy to be lulled into complacency about military preparedness. So when Rep. Ike Skelton, who represents a vast district in mid-Missouri that includes two major military bases, tells the House Budget Committee that President Clinton isn't recommending enough budgetary support for the nation's military, many key figures at all levels of government take notice.

Skelton is also a senior member of the House National Security Committee. In his many years of service in Congress, he has built up a highly respected reputation as one of the more knowledgeable legislators when is comes to military matters. This isn't just because Skelton is interested in protecting the military interests in his district. He also has a deep-seated regard for the role of the U.S. military, both in protecting these shores and in fulfilling the nation's responsibilities as a world leader.

In his proposed budget for next year, President Clinton has suggested military spending of $255 billion. This is at least $12 billion too little, Skelton says. And the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, puts the military shortfall in the president's budget at $14 billion.

Either amount indicates a distinct difference in the president's approach to military readiness and that of veteran legislators, government officials and senior military officers -- most of whom have the advantage of service in some branch of the U.S. armed forces.

The current standard for military readiness is based on a "two-war strategy." Simply put, this means U.S. forces should be prepared at all times to engage in two wars at the same time. For example, if the need had arisen during the Gulf War for military strength in another part of the world, the resources should have been there. With the budgeting level proposed by the president, key officials such as Skelton believe the needed readiness might not be available.

There are calls from many quarters to reduce government and the runaway expenditures that accompany government funding. But if Americans expect anything at all from the federal government -- and are willing to pay for it as well -- it is military might. Throughout the country's history Americans have fought to defend this nation and its inherent freedoms. It isn't likely they want to see national defense eroded now.