Since shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, when the war on terror officially began, President Bush and Congress have been unified in calling for higher levels of defense spending. Even as public pressure has begun to build on Congress over runaway deficits and new entitlements, defense spending ìin a time of warî has continued to rise dramatically.

The unfortunate thing is that much of what our nation does spend on defense has almost nothing to do with fighting the ìwar on terror.î The U.S. bomber fleet is a useful example. Keeping 94 B-52s flying costs about $250 million a year ñ less than half the cost of one new B-2 ñ and yet in fighting terrorists they are equals. In fact, we are still developing weapons systems for use against a Soviet adversary that has not existed for nearly 15 years.

The Bush Administration should be commended for eliminating both the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter, but in light of all of the new missions our military is now coping with, a more aggressive effort to reallocate resources is essential. The 2005 budget proposes to spend billions on weapon systems like the F-22 ($4.7 billion), the Joint Strike Fighter ($4.5 billion), and the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft ($1.7 billion). Each of these programs was originally developed to meet threats that no longer seem viable, while the Osprey has been plagued by crashes during its development, killing a total of 30 men. The General Accounting Office has called the Osprey ìfar less reliableî than it needs to be for active service. The Virginia-class submarine, SSN-774, ($2.7 billion) is yet another weapons system that could be eliminated in light of our existing fleet of SSN-668 Los Angeles-class vessels, which is unquestionably the best in the world. President Bush himself called for the programís cancellation in a 1999 speech at the Citadel.

In addition to spending billions of dollars on weapons systems to defend against a threat that no longer exists, American taxpayers are paying for troop deployments in locations that might be considered strategic in light of an attack from the former Soviet Union, but not where they might be useful in keeping an eye on brewing conflicts in the Middle East. In fact, the United States has approximately 72,000 troops stationed in Germany, 41,000 troops in Japan, 13,000 in Italy, and 11,000 in the U.K. These are enough troops to more than double our presence in Iraq. Rather than asking for a substantial hike in defense spending and a $50 billion supplemental after the election, President Bush would be better served by redeploying these overseas troops in the war on terror and closing their former bases to save taxpayer money.

There is plenty of wasteful and unnecessary spending in the defense budget that has less to do with keeping Americans safe and more to do with distributing pork barrel spending. Congress cannot achieve true fiscal responsibility if it only tackles non-defense, discretionary spending. Rather, all programs must be scrutinized for savings, defense included.

Paul J. Gessing is Director of Government Affairs for the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). As a private citizen, he is also a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.