Backtalk: What a Democratic president could mean for the military

[unhappycamper]

What a Democratic president could mean for the military
By Loren Thompson

With voters unhappy about the economy and Iraq, and Republicans seemingly unable to unite behind one candidate, there is a high likelihood the Democratic Party will win the White House in November. What would a Democratic victory mean for military spending and programs?

Many observers assume that threats will be more important than politics in setting defense policies. When urgent threats arise, partisan differences tend to disappear.

However, there is no certainty that security challenges will play a major role in shaping political trends over the next four years, because the Bush administration has managed to avoid a follow-on attack to Sept. 11 and U.S. strategy in Iraq is beginning to bear fruit.

In 2006, a group of analysts at Merrill Lynch & Co. released a study of outlays for military research and procurement over the previous 50 years that demonstrated a striking relationship between Democratic political control and declining investment in weapons. The analysts found that 76 percent of the variation in weapons outlays in recent decades was attributable to whether Democrats or Republicans controlled the White House and Senate. In fact, the study found that the lowest level of weapons outlays in a Republican administration was likely to be considerably greater than the highest level in a Democratic administration, with the spread between potential outcomes totaling nearly $100 billion per year.

A skeptic could argue that such findings reflect the fact that Democratic administrations took office at the end of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, when weapons outlays would be expected to decline no matter who was running the government. After all, Democrats presided over most of the big military buildups of the past century.


Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/army_backtalk_democratic_080218/