WASHINGTON -- You might think the defense establishment and pro-military Republican politicians would be the best of friends, possibly even soul mates. Not so.
The initial exchanges between Pentagon leaders and GOP lawmakers who want to strengthen the nation's defenses have produced a striking level of tension.
For example:
* Sen. Strom Thurmond, the GOP chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has told the service chiefs to "look to the head of their chain of command" -- meaning President Clinton -- ** not to Congress, to place blame for any lack of war-fighting funds.
* Defense Secretary William J. Perry, normally a man of great restraint, has challenged GOP members of the House National Security Committee to ask him to step down if they find him either incapable or unwilling to meet his responsibilities.
* Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the most powerful members of the Armed Services Committee, has accused Mr. Perry of "abusing" his authority in financing an oil shipment to North Korea without congressional approval.
At the core of the tension is a basic conflict over whether the nation's military forces are adequately financed, equipped and manned for their mission of being able to fight almost simultaneously two major regional conflicts, such as in Korea and the Persian Gulf.
The Clinton administration insists they are. The Republicans say they are not.
More money than needed
Ironically, this disagreement has produced the prospect of the Republicans giving the Pentagon more money than its leaders say it needs.
If the money is forced on the defense planners, their next argument with GOP legislators will be over how to spend it.
There is another central conflict: The Republicans are being told by the administration that unless they pay for international missions they don't want, they will jeopardize the military readiness they do want.
The administration is currently seeking early payment of $2.6 billion to cover the cost of peacekeeping missions, such as the one now in progress in Haiti.
This has been coupled with a warning to Republicans that any delay in approving the funds will undermine the ability of the armed forces to fulfill their overall defense function because money will have to be diverted from training and operations budgets -- thus undermining readiness.
'Absurd' assertions
Angered by the administration's "absurd" assertions that Congress is being tardy in approving the $2.6 billion request -- which the administration has yet to send to Congress -- Mr. Thurmond said:
"President Clinton has no problem in sending troops to every corner of the Earth at a moment's notice. I would think he could send an appropriations request across town with more speed and urgency than this."
Once the fiscal 1996 defense budget is put on the congressional table Monday, the scene will be set for a full debate over the future size, financing and role of the armed services.
"There are dilemmas on both sides," said Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Defense Budget Project, a nonpartisan Washington research group on defense spending. "I think there is going to be a lot more friction this time around. A year ago there really was not much debate over the defense budget. It got tweaked a little here, a little there."
A senior Republican staff member said: "There is a lot of tension. The members of the Armed Services Committee don't feel as though they are getting the candid responses they would hope to get."
One member of the committee -- a Democrat -- openly aired those doubts when he questioned Gen. Gary Luck, the U.S. commander in South Korea, over his endorsement of the administration's recent accord with North Korea.
The general -- sitting beside Mr. Perry -- told the committee that the agreement to end North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions in return for U.S. aid in developing a peaceful nuclear power program was in the national security interest.
"That's not something you've been urged to say? That's what you personally believe?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
Replied the general: "I'm not very good at being urged, sir."
Suspicions that statements by the Pentagon's civilian leaders do not always reflect the military viewpoint were bolstered this week by a General Accounting Office report that said uniformed commanders believed the nation's ability to fight two wars almost simultaneously had been overstated by the administration.
Findings rejected
The GAO report quoted commanders as questioning the availability of equipment and the capacity to move it quickly around the world with the speed and efficiency that might be necessary. Mr. Perry rejected the report's findings.
His spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, said: "When he was presenting the final budget to the [service] chiefs, he said to every chief, face-to-face, eye-to-eye, 'Is this budget, your budget, adequate to maintain readiness?' They all said 'Yes.' "
Mr. Perry was equally straightforward when he came face-to-face, and eye-to-eye, with the GOP-controlled House National Security Committee for the first time.
The Republican assertion that U.S. military forces were "hollow," -- the buzzword for weak, under-equipped and demoralized -- was "not only wrong," said Mr. Perry, "but dangerous." It misled the American public and could even "confuse potential aggressors," he warned.
The blunt approach seemed to work. Within days, the House Republicans dropped their contention that forces were already "hollow," and, instead, said action should be taken to avoid their becoming so.
More incensed
Mr. Perry was even more incensed by the proposal in the Republicans' "Contract With America" to set up a 12-member commission to review military strategy, readiness and force structure.
"I cannot support a flawed concept of a commission to decide those matters for both of us," he said. "You should not dilute the responsibilities of the secretary of defense by trying to turn a key part of them over to an independent commission.
"Rather, you should hold me accountable for meeting those responsibilities. And if you find that I'm incapable or unwilling to meet those responsibilities, you should ask me to step down as the secretary of defense."
Those were strong words, and, again, they seemed to work. The panel this week rewrote its commission proposal to make it less intrusive on the Mr. Perry's prerogatives.
Stay tuned.