Dear Mr. President:

We write to endorse the bold new course you have charted for American national security strategy. Your administration has shown impressive leadership in recognizing new threats and seizing new opportunities to create an enduring "balance of power that favors freedom." Yet a great risk remains: a continuing lack of military means. For the fact is this: Our current level of defense spending is inadequate to meet the demands of the Bush Doctrine.

It would be interesting to know just what they think this doctrine is.

American strength is key to building the new world you have envisioned. The victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan was an essential first step in stabilizing that chaotic country and toward destroying the al Qaeda terrorist network. The international community and an overwhelming military coalition are now ready to end the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

It is particularly evident that the administration did indeed take the advice of PNAC in regards to Saddam Hussein's regime. The threat of a regime. It would appear to be a list. But I gather Iraq was number one on the list, but most conspiracists think that.

Yet a multitude of threats elsewhere call into question our ability now, and in the future, to defend adequately our interests and our principles around the globe. Removing Saddam is but the first step toward reconstructing a decent government in Iraq and carrying out your strategic vision for the Middle East. Other rogue states remain a major problem. Indeed, we now confront the two-war scenario: Even as we deploy forces for war against Iraq, North Korea has abrogated its agreement to terminate its nuclear weapons development and threatens war if it is not appeased. The third member of the "axis of evil," Iran, has likewise stepped up its nuclear efforts.

It should be noted that recently N. Korea sided with some Americans in making that generalization between Bush and Hitler. But what of "their interests"? Furthermore that "strategic vision", what of that? One could come to the conclusion that it means another good lie "what better way to fight the war on terror than right in their back yard". That was my lie to young folks I used to work with on why Iraq. To bad Bush didn't think of it. But as we know, he isn't all that clever. If he was he would be making claims of "Iraq and Afghanistan are in the Olympics", "We have lost in the war on terror less than 200 soldiers". That isn't a lie really because the war in Iraq in my opinion has little to do with it. Strange really the Project for a New American Century.

Meanwhile, the war on terrorism, as you predicted, is being "fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time." We have deprived al Qaeda of its sanctuary in Afghanistan and are preparing to expand our presence out of Kabul into the surrounding provinces. But the war is also carrying U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan, and we also have committed ourselves to a long-term military presence in Central Asia. And the attacks in Bali - intended in part to target Americans - and in the Philippines - where we have troops aiding and advising the Filipino army - show how this war has spread to Southeast Asia.

In many op-ed pieces it can be argued that they chased the Taliban right into the heart of Iraq.  Blind leading the blind, no doubt about it. Who are these people? Really.

In East Asia, China, as your own administration says, is "pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors" - our democratic allies - and derail its own internal political and economic modernization. With U.S. troops stretched as they are, it is a serious question of whether we could respond adequately to a Korean crisis or a sudden confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. And, lest we forget, American troops continue to keep the peace in the Balkans and in the Sinai, and patrol countless other global hotspots.

In sum, there is an increasingly dangerous gap between our strategic ends and our military means, and the Bush Doctrine cannot be carried out effectively without a larger military force.

This will be a lesson to us all if Bush does get his re-election bid, and the lesson will be more military and only one way to do it, and not a backdoor draft of reservists but a regular military draft. Another prediction will be the repeal of the 22nd amendment of the Constitution. Actually Clinton did try it, but the republican majority would have none of it. What is the 22nd amendment? The Two term limit, that's what. Additionally, I see Bush as being one that would ratify that amendment and the house of course in support.

By every measure, current defense spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities. Ten years ago, America's defense burden was 4.8% of GDP. Although the decline in defense spending has been halted, we have not done nearly enough to make up for this decade of neglect. The modest increase planned for next year will still leave Pentagon spending at about 3.4 % of GDP, and Congressional Budget Office projections are that the proportion will decline to approximately 3% by 2007.

They will get their way. The way things are shaking out at the CIA and other intel organizations it is looking like they will be thrown together in one. Not a bad idea considering the fact that if the big three, the FBI, FAA, CIA were in constant contact with each other the 9/11 tragedy would not have happened. As it is, one buried story told of holding back information so that departments can get more funding. In retrospect, their best model to emulate is Al-Qaida.

Inadequate funding results in an inadequate force. Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform. A reduced active-duty force means an increasing reliance on reserve troops, not just in times of war but to meet daily presence requirements. Inadequate modernization programs have also slowed the normal and necessary replacement of planes, ships and equipment; indeed, to make up for the "procurement holiday" of the past decade, tens of billions more over the next decade will have to be spent than is currently budgeted. And, finally, inadequate research spending has hampered the development of missile defenses and is delaying the transformation of our conventional forces and the exploitation of new technologies.

War mongering at its best. How are they going to fit Kerry into all this, "the next decade", rather forward thinking on their part. The conspiracy theory here could be the derailment of Dean. Not likely but its entertaining.

To rebuild, transform, and man our military adequately for its many missions and responsibilities, defense spending will need to be increased by an additional $70 to $100 billion. This would bring defense expenditures to 3.8% - 4.0% of GDP in 2007. Less than a nickel on the dollar for American security in the 21st century is cheap at the price. We urge you, Mr. President, to make it a legislative and budgetary priority to increase defense spending to these levels over the next few years in order to ensure that the security challenges we face are met.

PNAC is great movie stuff. Maybe this organization will be brought out into the light in 50 some years on the History Channel.

Sincerely,

William Kristol

Gary Bauer        Max Boot        Frank Carlucci

Eliot Cohen         Midge Decter        Thomas Donnelly

Frank Gaffney        Daniel Goure        Bruce P. Jackson

Donald Kagan        Robert Kagan        Lewis E. Lehrman

Tod Lindberg        Rich Lowry        Daniel McKivergan       

Joshua Muravchik        Danielle Pletka        Norman Podhoretz        

Stephen P. Rosen        Gary Schmitt         Randy Scheunemann        

William Schneider, Jr.        Richard Shultz        Henry Sokolski       

Chris Williams         R. James Woolsey