Crimson: Have we been providing support to them?
Weinberger: I don't know of any, no.
Crimson: On Poland, what would be the appropriate U.S. response should the Soviets move in?
Weinberger: Well, first of all, I think if the Soviets went into Poland, either directly or indirectly, it would be a perfectly clear statement by the Soviets that they didn't want any further peace or disarmament or arms limitation talks. These would become completely futile. I've raised this point with a number of the foreign ministers and defense ministers from the NATO countries, and they all seem to be in full agreement. Their demands and their desires for discussions of this kind would pretty well evaporate if the Soviets went into Poland, and I think maybe that in itself would be a fairly strong deterrent because the Soviets seem to be extremely anxious to have talks of almost any kind, do anything they can to get people around the table. There are other things that could be done, and obviously we didn't want to discuss very specific measures that might be taken because there's a substantial capability to do some things but we want to achieve the result of not having the Soviets go into Poland.
Crimson: What if the crackdown came from Polish internal security forces?
Weinberger: Well, I used the words "directly or indirectly" before when talking about an invasion. There might be a fine line which might be difficult to determine, whether the Soviets had actually invaded or not but I think we'd be able to tell pretty well one way or another.
Crimson: Why is this administration confident that, unlike in Vietnam, the U.S. will not be slowly drawn, step-by-step, into a situation in EI Salvador where it will either have to withdraw or escalate?
Weinberger: I guess one reason is that we have the lesson of Vietnam before us. The other is that the instructions that have been given to the 50 trainers who are down there, technicians and so on, are very explicit. They are not to engage in any combat; they're not to go in areas where there has been combat; they're not to go out on combat patrol; they're not to fly helicopters in the combat areas or where there has been combat. They are to engage strictly in training, and in assistance of that kind, and not to yield any requests or indeed to go in any areas where there might be combat. The guerilla situation means there isn't any front line and the whole country's dangerous, but it's dangerous to cross the street in New York City and there's no place that's risk-free. But I think we've done everything that we can to insure that the EI Salvadorean government, which has embarked on a course of liberalization and land reform and all, is supported in the way in which they think is effective, and what they've asked for is military and economic aid and 50 advisers, trainers. And that's what they're going to get.
Crimson: There have been reports that some of those advisers may be withdrawn-over the summer. What are your plans?
Weinberger: Obviously it's a temporary assignment, I don't think anybody's got any fixed date on it one way or the other, but there'll be some rotations. Some people will complete particular assignments, and perhaps there will be some training done outside the country, and reasonably informal kind of shifts But I don't know when the actual training mission will be formally completed. They'll be withdrawn when that time comes. There isn't any particular timetable. There is a need to do a job, and that's a job which the EI Salvadorean government wants, and that's what they're down doing. I don't really know how long it will take.
Crimson: In a worst-case scenario, would you favor sending U.S. military troops if necessary to keep the EI Salvadorean government from falling?
Weinberger: Well, I'd have to see what that worst-case scenario really was. I'm very hopeful and reasonably confident that the EI Salvadorean government will be able to dispose of the guerillas, but if they keep pouring in more weapons and arms and PLO-types from various other parts of the world why then [the government] might have more trouble in handling the situation. But I hope this doesn't happen.
Crimson: In previous positions you've gained a reputation as "Cap the Knife" and keeping a tight budget. How do you justify a $25 billion increase in the defense budget at a time when federal spending in human areas, including programs for Vietnam veterans, are being sharply curtailed?
Weinberger: I justify it because it's necessary. I think we've fallen far behind in our defense expenditures--not expenditures per se, but in our defensive strength. Any briefing on a comparative basis of our strength and Soviet strength, either in conventional or strategic forces, brings us out, I think, in a very inferior position, and it's very dangerous to stay in an inferior position without trying to do something to redress that balance. We have to do quite a lot and do it quickly, because there is along lead time before you can improve your situation. That's why it's so dangerous to let it get out of balance. Government spending should be reduced on an overall basis. The president is doing it and making some very courageous decisions because frequently these are politically-supported programs, supported by very vigorous and effective special lobbys. They aren't all that good programs, many of them. There is a lot of support, for example, among the lobbys for school lunch and school milk programs. These sound like the height of compassion and anyone who opposes them is bound to be anti-humanitarian. But when you look at them, what are they? Well mostly they're programs that are sponsored by the milk lobbys and the agricultural lobbys, and they're programs that frequently are not need-oriented. My children, when they were in school, qualified for the free milk program, which is absurd. So I think it's time to reexamine a lot of these programs and point them where the need is, and reduce their inefficiencies and their costs, and I think that's what the president is trying to do. Frequently, he's only reducing the rate of increase. This budget, even besides for defense, is very much higher than last year's budget; it's not all that austere. It's the reductions that have been needed for a very long time, and reexaminations of programs and regulations that have been needed for a very long time.
Crimson: But in a bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon's, surely there must be some waste...
Weinberger: Oh yes, there is, and we've already found $3.2 billion in the short time we're here in sayings, and we'll hope for a lot more. Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't have our knives out for all the savings we can, and we hope to do that. But what we've done, really, is make a thorough revision in two budgets, a job that ordinarily takes about eight months, in about four weeks. We've done that because we felt we had to to get started early and present these approvals to the Congress. In that time, as I say, we've been able to make about $3.2 billion in savings, but we could do a lot more. Any organization that spends $222 billion dollars has got to have some waste in it, and that's what we're after. So the knife's just as sharp as ever.
Weinberger on:
Withdrawal of Advisers in El Salvador There isn't any particular timetable. There is a need to do a job, and that's a job which the EI Salvadorean government wants, and that's what they're down there doing. I don't really know how long it will take.
Defense Budget
I think we've fallen far behind in our defense expenditures--not expenditures per se, but in our defensive strength.