VIEWSrnThe New American CenturyrnSearching for Foes in the Post-Cold War Erarnby Doug BandowrnDespite the President’s and Congress’s promises, the budgetrnis unlikely to be balanced in the year 2002. The bulkrnof the promised spending cuts come after the year 2000, and ftiturernCongresses and Presidents are unlikely to be any morernwilling than present ones to make tough political decisions.rnEqually problematic is the fact that both parties continue tornprotect large segments of the budget, like defense, from seriousrnreductions. Over the next five years, military expenditures willrnfall, but only in real terms, as budget increases are held belowrninflation. Even this “cut” was approved only grudgingly, asrnboth parties have competed to restore previous reductions.rnHowever, military outlays should be an obvious target forrnbudget-cutters in the coming years. Defense spending does notrnexist in a vacuum; it is the price of our foreign policy. W-Tienrnthe United States faced the threat of hegemonic communismrn—an aggressive Soviet Union aided by client states worldwidern—it chose the policy of containment, which required arnlarge military, numerous alliances, scores of bases, arrd an advancedrnforce presence around the globe. All told, Washingtonrnspent more than $13 trillion (in today’s dollars) to win the ColdrnWar.rnBut in 1989, all the assumptions underlying American foreignrnpolicy collapsed. The Central and Eastern EuropeanrnDoug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a formerrnSpecial Assistant to President Reagan. He is the author,rnmost recently, o/ Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in arnChanged Worid (Cato).rnstates overthrew communism, the Berlin Wall fell, the WarsawrnPact dissolved, and the Soviet Union disappeared. A militar}-rnstrategy and force structure designed to deter Soviet aggressionrnwas suddenly obsolete; the United States faced no adversaryrnworthy of the name.rnMilitary spending did not change accordingly, however.rnTrue, outlays have fallen, but only from the 1985 peak, up 55rnpercent from 1980, caused by the Reagan defense buildup. Atrnroughly $270 billion, military outlays in 1997 remained abovernthe level of 1980, even in inflation-adjusted terms. Indeed,rnPresident Clinton is spending more than Richard Nixon spentrnin 1975 and almost as much as Lyndon Johnson spent in 1965rnduring the height of the Cold War. Outlays are running at 85rnpercent of the Cold War average, without a Cold War. Washingtonrnaccounts for a larger share of the globe’s military expendituresrntoday than it did a decade ago, when it faced a hosHlernhegemonic threat.rnBut this is not enough for many policymakers. Conservativesrnled by Republican pundit William Kristol, former drug czarrnWilliam Bennett, Family Research Council President GaryrnBauer, potenrial presidential candidates Steve Forbes and DanrnQuayle, and neoconservative journalist Norman Podhoretzrnhave formed the Project for the New American Century. Thernorganization is dedicated to promoting what Kristol characterizesrnas “benevolent hegemony.” As he argues, “we need to increaserndefense spending significantly if we are to carry out ourrnglobal responsibilities,” namely, imposing order around thernglobe. Kristol advocates an annual increase of $60 to $80 bil-rn14/CHRONICLESrnrnrn