European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - May 24, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Friday. May 24, 1991 the stars and stripes commentary Leslie gel Bush Pentagon Wrangle Over future budget whether to buy 650 new fighter aircraft for $95 billion is the Mother of All Pentagon decisions the biggest and perhaps the most direction setting military contract in recent history. Instinct is to say yes. The f-22 will maintain necessary . Air superiority in any future conventional War. But the program represents a major commitment to old thinking in defense policy. It Calls for spending a record $ 100 million per tactical aircraft to fight a War against the equivalent of the soviet Union a to say nothing about the Domestic programs that could use the Money. Besides the United states already has air superiority Over its soviet French and British competitors. And yet these nations probably will develop new and better fighters if we stand still. We cannot take such a risk. On this decision the Bush administration and Congress must make haste deliberately. They cannot look at the f-22 Issue in isolation from the rest of the defense budget and apart from Domestic priorities. Bush administration officials and legislators also should explore creative arms control solutions before blowing ahead. The f-22 is a terrific plane. It will possess Star trek electronics Mach 2 sprint Speed and be nearly invisible to radar. It is designed to replace the f-15, already better than its foreign competitors. As Good As the f-22 is we have to. Examine whether we can afford it and the other planes on the air Force and Navy wish lists a and meet the National need to reduce military spending Over the decade. Don Rice the Able air Force Secretary says we can. But congressional experts argue otherwise. If the f-22 and the other aircraft on the drawing boards Are approved they say Pentagon spending actually will increase again by 1995. The prime candidate for cancellation is the b-2 stealth bomber. We already have More than enough ways to hit countries Tom Wicker _ Al -------�?-----<j>ruui�i.en�iarrf, stealth v95 billion por 650 f-22 i amp was with nuclear weapons and that is its Only real function. Ditto for the exorbitantly expensive c-17 cargo plane when we can build More c-5s. A the air Force also has to be pressed on whether it must fully replace the f-16 fighter bomber As Well As the f-22. The worst alternative is usually to buy less say 300 f-22s instead of 650. The fewer aircraft produced the More each would Cost. Thus 300 ,f-22s could drive up the Price for each aircraft by perhaps 50 percent and the total Bill could approach the original $95 billion. But if the contractor were laced with the Choice of no f-22 or holding Down the unit Price in a smaller package the business military Axis might find an imaginative answer. In any event 650 f22s sounds High except for an All out War against the soviet Union. The United states  Able to sustain air superiority against any a other conceivable foe with 300 or less of these front line fighters in a mix with existing but upgraded f-15s and f-16s, at least into the next Century. Yet another alternative is to explore with Moscow London and Paris the possibilities of Banning new fighter production for a decade. Nothing like this has Ever been attempted with aircraft and the Effort would be extremely comply a rated.  ��.�. A a a a a a a. A. The closest parallel would be modernization limits on missiles in strategic arms treaties. A. V a. A. The agreement would permit modernizing existing fighters and developing new ones. But the parties would be barred from constructing Assembly lines to build new fighters. Our competitors would not Welcome the proposition. It would lock them into inferiority. It also might kill off their highly prize and protected fighter aircraft industries. They cannot remain financially viable without exports and most customers would prefer the better . Models. But Moscow London and Paris also face budget squeezes. For their relatively inefficient industries to compete with the new f-22 would Force them to pay a disproportionately High Price. That Price just might Lead them to entertain a temporary production ban. The. Odds Are not Good but it is Worth a serious try. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Rice handled the development of the f-22 beautifully. It is a shame to slow them Down now. It would be an even greater shame however to make a $95 billion mistake. Tho now York times a Case against presidential debate proposal the i960 presidential Campaign Between John f. Kennedy and Richard m. Nixon was the first in which the candidates debated each other and the last in which More than 60 percent of eligible americans bothered to vote. There a no evidence that the a a debates now Standard in presidential campaigns have caused the decline in voter participation. But these glitzy television confrontations have done something almost As harmful they be converted the Choice of a president into a Hollywood High noon shootout. Now the Senate with Little debate and less.consider-. Action has voted to bribe future democratic and Republican presidential nominees into four debates during their fall campaigns  lose their Federal financing if they refuse. That would be a High Price to pay a $46.5 million apiece in 1988 to George Bush and Michael Dukakis. A sen. Robert Graham d-fla., who sponsored the idea argued that debates would discourage negative Campaign tactics. Tell that to Dukakis who debated Bush twice with no diminution whatever in the number of paint peeling Willie Horton Boston Harbor and pledge of allegiance to spots he and the democrats had to endure. The goo goo reason More often Given for pious support of these duels on the tube is that they a inform the american  baloney. Even a casual review of previous debates will show that these High stakes showdowns Are gushing fountains of misinformation disinformation posturing prevarication and puerile to. The Winner gets the White House the secret serv ice and air Force one the loser gets a line in the world almanac. The most famous presidential debate a the first Kennedy Nixon bout in 1960 a turned More nearly on the appearance and manner of the candidates than on any of their unmemorable remarks. The second Reagan Mondale round in 1984 went to the elderly Reagan by consensus owing to his jape about Mondale a comparative youth. This is informing the Public. \ in fact there were Many More reasons for the Senate to leave the debate Issue alone than to impose debates on the Public. For one thing practically to Force candidates even sitting presidents except for the current incumbent to debate an opponent is an infringement on their free speech rights. That one might choose instead to lose Federal financing for his or her Campaign is hardly any Choice at All. The Senate Bill Jilson would impose an undesirable limit on political strategy. Its Clear in retrospect that vice president Nixon made a mistake when he let the lesser known senator Kennedy share a television stage and the spotlight in 1960. Graham would require practically speaking any better known candidate to make that mistake in the fun Ture. A a a. A a. Under present custom of course any candidate who refuses to debate risks the anger of the Public. Is that a lesser or greater risk than debating making such judgments is what candidates Are supposed to do. Televised debates moreover can and do decide presidential elections a less because they inform the Public than because of a winners personal appear Ance or appealing manner or glib response or a losers fluff president Fords unimportant mistake in 1976, about Poland. Popular banalities and empty promises a like a sweating face or a hesitant response a All receive undue prominence in the television forum and May carry too much weight on election Day. Yet a presidents duties never require him to debate anyone on television trend re an audience of millions where the tiniest error or defect a like Richard Nix a no a oversized shirt Collar in i960 a will be magnified into cause for defeat. A. All this might be Suff Erable if televised debates really did inform the Public significantly. But what is most vividly remembered from the 1988 Bush Dukakis exchanges Dukakis failure to show anger Over a reporters question about a hypothetical assault on mrs. Dukakis. A a from Reagan and president Carter in 1980, it was Reagan a irreverent a there you go again.�?�. From 1960 until 1976, the nation got along quite Well without presidential debates and before i960, from George Washington through Dwight Eisenhower the voters needed no debates to help them choose. Nor do they now even with television to carry the hype to every Hearth and  new York times. The opinions expressed in the columns and cartoons on this Page represent those of the authors and Are in no Way to be considered As representing the views of 1 he stars and stripes or the United states government