Bush's military tour draws praise, skepticism

Bush and West Virginia National Guard Gen. Allen Tackett inspect troops in Charleston on Wednesday.

By John King
CNN senior White House correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday concluded a three-day focus on military issues that drew a bipartisan praise but also a healthy dose of questions and skepticism from key members of Congress.

Visiting National Guard and Reserve units in Charleston, West Virginia, Bush promised the part-time troops that he would "clarify" their mission and ease what he considers to be the personal toll of over-deployment.

"The reality is the Guard and Reserves carry quite a bit of load overseas," Bush said. "We'll work with our allies to help them understand that our nation is a nation of peacemakers. We'll help make the peace, but we're going to be reluctant to put troops on the ground to keep people apart, warring parties apart."

Bush is a former member of the Texas Air National Guard. Some 1.3 million Americans serve in the Reserves and National Guard.

Wednesday's visit was the last of a three-day presidential tour of military units. On Tuesday at the Norfolk Naval Air Station in Virginia, Bush discussed the challenge of restructuring the military and making the most of new technologies. At Fort Stewart, Georgia, on Monday he focused on military pay and benefits.

The president offered few details of his plan beyond promising to seek an additional $1 billion for military pay raises and $400 million for improvements to military housing. Most major spending decisions are on hold pending a top-to-bottom review of Pentagon spending being conducted by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

A call for more money now

The new administration's posture has created some tension with the Pentagon brass and several key pro-military lawmakers, who argue the Pentagon needs an emergency infusion of $5 billion to $8 billion or more to deal with funding shortfalls for maintenance, spare parts, training and other operations.

"We need an immediate supplemental appropriation right now -- for seamen hours, flying hours, training, for combined, for joint exercises, for backlot and real estate maintenance, for family housing," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "All of these are necessary right now. Otherwise a bunch of the efforts of the military will be shut down."

And while welcoming the new president's plans for additional military pay raises, Skelton said the impact of the $1 billion Bush plan would be relatively small. "For each 1 percent pay raise it is about a $600 million, so a billion dollars won't cut the mustard."

The Bush plan is on top of a 4.6 percent raise already passed by the Congress. It will be up to Rumseld, assuming Congress approves the money in the next budget, to develop a plan for implementing the raises. But the expectation is the money would go to re-enlistment incentives.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, also has put the White House on notice that he believes an emergency supplemental Pentagon spending bill is necessary.

Warner said he is willing to give the new administration a short period of time to get a first-hand assessment of the needs. He also said he would support the president in trying to keep the measure from growing, as is customary when supplemental budgets are considered by Congress.

"The challenge of the leadership of the Congress and indeed the president is to not let it grow and become a great big snowball rolling down the hill," Warner said.

Little more than beating inflation

The current Bush plan is for a $310 billion Pentagon budget next year -- the fiscal year that begins October 1, although the administration has not ruled out seeking more money once the Rumsfeld review is completed.

The plans for a modest increase are causing grumbling among many Republicans and conservative groups that believe the Pentagon needs a more dramatic spending increase.

The planned Bush budget would do little more than keep pace with inflation. Some lawmakers have suggested increasing the Pentagon budget by tens of billions of dollars on top of that.

And unanswered so far is how fast, and at what price, the administration will proceed with its plans for a national missile defense system.

The Bush team is hoping to identify considerable savings in the current Pentagon spending plan, and has an ally in Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former campaign rival who has caused White House grumbling on other issues.

"I think there [are] great economies that can be made starting with a round of base closings," McCain said in an interview. "I want the president to veto these pork-barrel spending bills which have grown to incredible obscene levels. I believe there are a number of weapons systems that have to be eliminated."

Local vs. national priorities

McCain estimated savings of up to $4 billion a year with additional base closings. But such proposals spark outcry among members of Congress from the affected areas, as do suggestions to cut specific weapons programs favored by lawmakers because of jobs created in their states and districts.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, for example, said he applauded the Bush administration review, but said he was prepared to fight if there was another effort in Congress to kill the new F-22 fighter -- a $159 million stealth fighter built in part by Lockheed Martin in Cleland's home state.

"I think it's what we need -- it's the air cover, air dominance vehicle of the 21st century," Cleland said, disputing those who believe it would be more cost-efficient to upgrade the current F-15 fighter.

Cleland likewise voiced support for the C-130J, a new model of the Army's staple C-130 transport aircraft, also developed and built by Lockheed Martin.

Cleland traveled with the president to Fort Stewart, Georgia, on Monday and said he supported the new commander-in-chief's promise to take a more skeptical view of US peacekeeping efforts around the world.

"Deployments have increased some 300 percent, and the military has been decreased by a third: Hello, good morning -- you can't keep that up forever," Cleland said. "Sooner or later you're going to get people stressed out, spread too thin around the world, and they just won't put up with it anymore."

The missile-defense debate is more than a cost issue. Russia and China vehemently oppose the plans and many U.S. allies are opposed or highly skeptical.

Warner said, however, he believed the new administration was making slow progress in making the case for the program.

"Our allies, I think, are beginning to take a more patient understanding of what we are trying to achieve and, indeed, if we are able to build scientifically this system it will be to the benefit of our allies," Warner said.

See related sites about Politics

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.