May 20, 2001

Reserves shouldn't be lost to budget cuts

For two centuries, America's "ready reserve" has been the hidden strength of national defense. We hope Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld isn't planning to sap it.

It has been reported Rumsfeld is considering cuts in strength of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The idea is to save money that could be put to use in developing a national missile defense system or providing better pay and benefits for active-duty service men and women. That could fall into the category of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Reserve soldiers, sailors and aviators are recognized internationally as one of this country's great strengths. No other nation has reserves so capable of walking out of offices and factories and becoming, within a few days, effective fighting men and women. That was demonstrated during the Persian Gulf War just a few years ago, when part-time American soldiers helped humble Iraq's vaunted legions.

About 865,000 Americans serve in military reserve units. They back up 1.4 million other men and women on active duty. With U.S. forces stretched thin in many areas, that hefty reserve contingent is an insurance policy for safeguarding our nation's interests.

No institution of government, no even the military, should be exempt from cost-cutting measures. But the goal should be to increase efficiency, not weaken our defense. Rumsfeld should consider carefully the ramifications of reducing the size of our reserve forces.