GROUP WAGES FIGHT TO SAVE NAVAL BASE FROM BUDGET'S AX; REAL ROLE OF ARMED SERVICES AT ISSUE.

Byline: JAMES BEMIS

At the first sign of danger, the elite unit went on full alert.

Mobilizing its battle-hardened veterans, they dug in for a pitched battle. Still in fighting trim following a successful firefight two years ago, the group is savvy, knows its opponent's weaknesses and, according to its commander, is ``much stronger'' than it was during its last series of maneuvers.

Is this the 101st Airborne, primed to protect our allies in the Middle East?

Or maybe the Army's First Division, the vaunted ``Big Red One,'' gearing up for a tour of duty in the desolate wilderness of Bosnia? Or is it a group of stealth fighter pilots, nervously awaiting instructions from their commander in chief?

No, sirree. It's the Ventura County Regional Defense Partnership, a lobbying group whose mission is to protect and defend the Point Mugu Navy base from the budget wars in Washington.

Ever since the Pentagon's surprise attack on weapons testing centers was announced last month, the Defense Partnership has been training for another big fight, carefully honing their speeches to a knife's edge; practicing their lobbying tactics and public relations blitzkriegs; running local politicians and community leaders through a series of punishing drills, preparing them for the ferocious battle ahead; feverishly stockpiling rations of political chips and favors for use at an opportune time. These crack troops are combat-ready.

Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, chairman of the Defense Partnership, has said ``we're probably as well prepared as any group in America to defend their local military base.'' Among their strategies are bringing new activities to Point Mugu, creating more partnerships with the private sector, and adapting military technologies for civilian use, all with an eye toward preserving jobs and investment in the county. You get the feeling our country's defense is the last thing on the Defense Partnership's mind.

This misguided effort is a perfect example why the military budget, and by extension the size of the federal government, can't be cut. The Pentagon budget is now viewed primarily as a jobs program, first and foremost. To the lobbying victors go the spoils.

The preamble to the Constitution calls for the establishment of a federal government to provide for, among other things, ``the common defense,'' a legitimate function few would dispute. As James Madison stated in Federalist No. 41, ``Is the power of raising and equipping fleets necessary? It is involved in the power of self-defense.'' So far, so good.

Madison and the other founders, though, believed that ``common defense'' meant just that, states agreeing to help defend other states under attack from abroad. This required only a minimum standing military force, however, as the country is blessed in having two rather large bodies of water protecting its coasts. The threat of invasion was, and still remains, remote.

``The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world,'' Madison said, ``gives happy security.'' Good oceans make good neighbors.

But in our progressive age, the concept of ``defense spending'' has been remade into ``military spending,'' with clearly evident changes in emphasis. Defense suggests the idea of the limited, specific function of protecting one's borders against another country's aggression. Very concrete, very precise. Military spending, on the other hand, is undefined in use, vague in function, and limitless in its claim on the taxpayer.

Somewhere along the line (about Woodrow Wilson's time), the armed services' role changed from ``providing for the common defense'' to ``making the world safe for democracy,'' a utopian goal that is wholly unobtainable. Consequently, the military has become the business end of Washington's foreign policy wish list.

Employed for everything from nabbing thugs in Panama to feeding Somalia's hungry, from repaying financial favors by invading Haiti to refereeing ancient brawls in Bosnia, our fighting forces are now dispatched for an unending series of busybody excursions for the international equivalent of domestic disputes, none of which bears any connection to America's legitimate national defense.

Justifiably, military spending grew exponentially during the Cold War, as we faced implicit and explicit threats from Communist powers. While that danger has greatly diminished, the ``defense'' budget has not. Who are we now so afraid of?

If you think of the appropriate amount of military spending as only that which is necessary to protect our country's shores, this issue is placed in proper perspective. In other words, jobs and investment notwithstanding, if Point Mugu is not necessary for our national defense, then it should be shut down. Otherwise, we risk turning the aim of the Pentagon's budget from warfare into welfare.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: The Ventura County Regional Defense Partnership is trying to save the Point Mugu Navy base.

Michael Owen Baker/Daily News