Today the nature of warfare and the political employment of military power are undergoing fundamental change. Margaret Thatcher of Britain calls the dispersal of weapons of mass destruction "the most dangerous threat of our times." Long-range missiles armed with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads are becoming the weapons of choice of rogue nations. The awesome destructive power of even a small arsenal can multiply a nation's military clout, political influence and destabilize regional balances of power.
In the Middle East - the world's most volatile region - Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria are aggressively seeking advanced weapons; meanwhile regional arms control efforts remain in limbo. Iran has already acquired Russian submarines, Chinese-made fast-attack missile boats and an arsenal of anti-ship missiles; and Iranian leaders recently signed an additional $4.5 billion arms deal with China. The goal: a capability to threaten world shipping, international oil platforms and the safety of American naval patrols now keeping the sea lanes open in the Persian Gulf - and eventual control of oil supplies flowing through the gulf.
North Korea is successfully using the nuclear card in Northeast Asia to manipulate U.S. and South Korean foreign policies. Its expanding ballistic missile capabilities are a driving factor in Japan's defense calculations.
To paraphrase the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, China "achieved its goals without resorting to hostilities" because it "orchestrated its power and influenced behavior" on Taiwan.
Missile diplomacy, blackmail and terror will be increasingly attractive options to rogue and aggressive nations as they acquire unconventional weapons and equip air, land and naval forces with sophisticated delivery systems. Such ominous trends open frightening new military possibilities that will undermine global stability.
It is not clear that the U.S. will be prepared for an environment in which potential adversaries armed with powerful weapons will be much more diversified and the threats less well defined than today. The administration seems preoccupied with its role as international peacemaker and has downgraded the importance of the military in advancing America's own defense and security. Neither the administration nor the Republican opposition has provided a coherent strategic logic to guide U.S. security policy and the military posture in the new era.
Naval forces, already reduced 40 percent since the Reagan era, are stretched thin and faced with a widening gap between activities and resources. The weapon systems needed to maintain a decisive edge over potential enemies are at risk. Before his death last spring, Adm. Mike Boorda, chief of naval operations, underscored this point in congressional testimony, "We have stressed readiness (current) . . . and we have shortchanged modernization to do that."
In the Middle East it is to insure that petroleum resources essential to a healthy global economy remain free of control by radical governments. In Asia it is to nurture a peaceful China; sustain a security partnership with Japan without which regional stability would collapse and defang a belligerent North Korea while ensuring the safety of 37,000 American troops deployed on the peninsula.
The administration urgently needs to reorder its strategic priorities and put America's national interests at the core of a global security policy to deal with the dangerous challenges ahead. President Clinton should heed the advice of his Democratic colleague Sen. Sam Nunn, who recently warned that the nation no longer "can afford to continue in a holding pattern" characterized by the lack of "a strategic vision that will guide us through the post-Cold War period and that will define and safeguard our vital interests."