The Price of Power

Through a driving rain that swept the Cuban coast, 2,100 U.S. Marines stormed into Guantanamo Bay, the tiny U.S. military base that perches like a lighthouse on the eastern tip of Fidel Castro's island fortress.

Most landed by helicopter from seaborne troop carriers, but a quarter of the force hit the beach in more classic Marine style, splashing ashore aboard tracked amphibious vehicles. Though their rifles, tanks and howitzers were unloaded—no live ammunition was carried throughout the operation—their performance was intended by Jimmy Carter to be a firm and well-publicized demonstration of Washington's concern about the presence of a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba.

But that was only one of a pride of U.S. military maneuvers round the world last week. At Grafenwohr, West Germany, a U.S. tank battalion roared into combat exercises after having been flown in from Fort Hood, Texas, on a "no notice" emergency drill. At Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, 20,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen prepared to launch "Bold Eagle 80," a nine-day maneuver to practice coming to the aid of an invaded ally. In the Indian Ocean, a U.S. Navy seven-ship carrier task force joined up with a five-ship Middle East force to show the flag.

All these military activities were designed to maintain the U.S. readiness needed both to protect the nation and meet its far-flung obligations. But just how well the Pentagon would be able to carry out its awesome responsibilities is a matter of growing concern in Washington. Both in the Administration and in Congress, officials confront a question that will not go away: Could the U.S. successfully counter a major Soviet military thrust, no matter where it came? If the answer seems doubtful, then the next question inevitably is: What must be done to ensure the nation's security?

Those two related questions have dominated the Senate debate on ratification of the SALT II accord. More generally, they have been influencing the way other countries view the U.S. as a world power. The search for answers has already caused one of the most far-ranging U.S. defense controversies since World War II.

The debate began stirring in scholarly journals, inside think tanks and on Capitol Hill. It has assumed a heightened sense of urgency during the SALT hearings, in which both expert witnesses and Senators have been expressing grave concern about the state of the nation's military strength. Armed with volumes of facts and statistics, they have convinced a growing number of citizens that the U.S. can no longer afford to postpone tough and costly defense decisions if it intends to remain a superpower. As a result, a consensus has been emerging that favors a stronger U.S. military establishment, something that would have seemed impossible only a few years ago. Badly—and unfairly—scarred by the Viet Nam War, the armed services were forced into a period of retrenchment, receiving little popular backing for their expensive needs.

But the national mood and the international realities are both changing.

In the coming months, the focus of the debate will be the fiscal 1981 defense budget, the final details of which are now being drafted in highly technical but often heated sessions behind closed doors