At the November 1996 US elections, Americans again voted for a divided government. They returned Democratic President Bill Clinton to the White House, the Executive branch of government, and Republican majorities to the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Legislative branch. These election results suggested that US defence policies and budgets would continue along the lines established at the 1994 elections. But fundamental questions about US defence forces and budgets will be raised by the May 1997 Quadrennial Defence Review.
Constitutionally, President Clinton is barred from serving more than a second term and his political influence will be limited by this and by his relatively small margin of victory. He secured only 49 per cent of the popular vote, less than the 50 per cent or more required by him to claim a popular mandate,
and carried 31 of 50 states.
In the 100-seat Senate, the Republicans won 55 seats and the Democrats 45. But the new Senate Republican majority is more conservative than the previous majority and more likely to support defence budgets. In the 435-seat House, the Republicans maintained control, but with a smaller majority. However, the Senate and House positions on defence policy and budgets will continue to be shaped by a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats concerned with making proper provisions for common defence, while holding the defence budget to reasonable levels, approximately $245 billion.
The Executive branch will retain the initiative to commit US forces to operations such as the United Nations operation in Bosnia. It also retains the initiative to use US forces for limited strikes in response to regional aggressors. The Executive branch will be supported by the Legislative branch in the initial stages of such operations and strikes.
But the Legislative branch increasingly will be critical of UN-type operations, especially if they result in even very low levels of casualties to American servicemen and servicewomen. It is reluctant to fund these expensive operations out of the regular defence budget. The Legislative branch also will be critical of what it saw as the Clinton administration's inadequate funding of the US military forces established as necessary by the Bottom UP Review (BUR), forces able to deal almost simultaneously with two major regional conflicts (MRC), and will insist on increased funding for selected items above administration requests, including theatre missile defence (TMD) systems.
The Legislative branch has mandated the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) as the successor to the 1993 BUR. The QDR will guide US defence policy and strategy through the early part of the 21st century and will be submitted to Congress by May 1997. The questions this review will address include: Were the size and structure of the US BUR forces appropriate for the late 1990s and beyond? What would it cost to fund these forces and could the US afford such funding? Could US forces use new technologies to create new kinds of forces and other conventionally armed missiles able to counterattack a regional aggressor's forces attacking a US ally?
