Pragmatist with a World View

Harold Brown last week shared his thoughts on defense policy with TIME Correspondent Bruce Nelan. Excerpts:

ON THE PENTAGON BUDGET. There are issues that need to be looked at--military pay and retirement programs, training programs, the rapid movement of the military from post to post, the creep upward into higher salary levels, the duplication between ourselves and our NATO allies on different systems. In every case where we are getting less for our money than we should be, there are historical, bureaucratic, political reasons for it. That's the way democracy works. But it means that it's hard to get these things out [of the budget].

ON THE SOVIET ARMS BUILDUP. I suspect that bureaucratic, historical and service drives exist there too. It may be that those drives are creating this [build-up]. I think we should in every case look for possibilities for improving our own security by arms limitation discussions and agreements. But I think it would be a mistake for us to say that is all we should do. We and our NATO allies should pull up our socks and see whether by more efficient approaches, we can increase our own conventional strength.

ON STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS. The biggest achievement so far is the limitation of anti-ballistic missiles, and I would hate to see that jeopardized. We should work hard to get [a second] agreement. We should not feel under the pressure that if we don't give in on some things by October [when the 1972 SALT I treaty expires] the world will come to an end or even that negotiations will. [The talks have been snagged for months on how to deal with two new weapons: the U.S. cruise missile and the Soviet Backfire bomber.] I would be willing to consider limiting [cruise missiles] under certain circumstances, but it depends on what you get for it and how the other side is limited. From what I read and see, the Backfire was not originally intended as a strategic arm against the U.S. The question for us is: Can it be used for strategic purposes?

ON THE B-1 BOMBER. The manned bomber does have certain advantages--you can raise its readiness, which is a visible sign, and it can be recalled [while a missile, once fired, cannot]. On the other hand, there are air defenses that make its attrition rate high, and it is vulnerable on the ground. Its big advantage is that it provides a different kind of penetration so that it complicates the other side's problems. The question is: How much can you afford to pay for that, as compared with the other ways you could spend the funds?

ON NUCLEAR WAR. Limited strategic war is almost impossible. Anyone who contemplates one is fooling himself if he thinks the chances are not overwhelming that it would become an all-out urban and industrial attack.

ON THE DEFENSE JOB. I have tried to retain a rational and analytical approach to things. That does not preclude full consideration of the nonquantifiable--the human, individual and political aspects of any problem.

ON WHETHER HE IS A HAWK OR A DOVE. I face problems as they come to me. "Pragmatic" is a relatively friendly word, and "opportunistic" is relatively unfriendly; I think of myself as a pragmatist with a world view. I believe in a strong defense; I don't believe that defense is all there is to national security. Economic strength, political cohesion, good relations with allies are equally part of national security.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.