The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The major headlines today come from the Philippines where three generals were among those implicated in the murder of dissident leader Benigno Aquino; from South Africa, where 7,000 army troops raided a black township and arrested more than 300 persons; from Portland, Oregon, and Youngstown, Ohio, where Walter Mondale and President Reagan exchanged campaign words about taxes and competency; and from Arlington National Cemetery, where the deaths of 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut a year ago were memorialized. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The stories we focus extra attention on tonight begin with the Aquino murder report in the Philippines. A journalist joins us to give an overview of what lies ahead. We'll have one of our special presidential campaign Issue and Debate segments, this one on defense policy. A senior advisor to Walter Mondale and a former Republican secretary of defense join us to talk about that, and they stay with us as we look back at Lebanon one year ago on the anniversary of the bombing of the Marine barracks.

LEHRER: The lead story tonight is the Aquino conspiracy. Three Philippine generals and 23 others have been named as the conspirators. Four of five members of an official commission said all were indictable for the premeditated killing of Aquino last August 21st. Aquino was a popular political opponent of President Marcos and was returning to the Philippines after a long exile in the United States when he was gunned down at the Manila airport. The report, said the Reuters News Agency, names Philippine Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver as one of the three generals involved in the murder. The report is not formally scheduled for release until tomorrow. Its disclosure through Reuters followed the public release earlier today of a minority report from the commission's fifth member. It said there was a conspiracy but involved only one general and six subordinates. At the State Department a spokesman said the United States wants the Marcos government to follow up on both assassination reports.

JOHN HUGHES, State Department spokesman: We note that President Marcos has taken swift action on the report issued by the chairman of the Agrava Board, Mrs. Agrava, today. We expect that the Philippine government will take equally swift action following the submission of the majority report, which we understand will be issued tomorrow. We trust that, as President Marcos has promised, those responsible for Senator Aquino's murder, no matter who they may be, will be held accountable for this terrible crime. What we support in the Philippines is the rule of law and justice, and we would expect that President Marcos would pursue the rule of law and justice in this case.

LEHRER: We will be returning to the story later in the program. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The army and police in South Africa launched a major crackdown on black dissidents in that country today. Seven thousand of them moved into three black townships, conducting door-to-door searches, interrogating thousands of people and arresting more than 350. Police said they were looking for agitators whom they blamed for recent rioting against the racial policies of the white government. Graham Leach of the BBC is in South Africa and filed this report.

GRAHAM LEACH (BBC), [voice-over]: As dawn broke this morning, Sebokeng township awoke to find itself effectively under martial law. Heavily armed soldiers had taken up position, and the main entry points had been sealed off. The army's presence opened a new chapter in South Africa's attempts to deal with township unrest. Military support depots were quickly established at several points, suggesting the operation had been planned in detail in advance. In recent weeks the near continuous rioting in Sebokeng has brought widescale destruction. And it was clearly at the highest government and military level that the decision to send in the troops was taken. Political agitators and ordinary criminals are blamed by the security forces for the recent unrest. The operation amounted to an attempt to cleanse the township of the sources of all forms of disturbance.

WOODRUFF: That was Graham Leach of the BBC.

Oil ministers from the key OPEC countries say they have figured out a way to keep from having to lower their oil prices. They say they've agreed to cut production just enought to keep prices at the current $29-a-barrel benchmark despite recent moves by Britain and other countries to cut their prices. The decision won't be final, however, until all 13 OPEC members meet next week in Geneva and give their unanimous approval.

Here in this country the government reported today a major dropoff in orders received by factories for durable goods, such as cars, appliances and defense hardware. At 4.3% it was the steepest decline in five months, and what some economists say is further evidence of the far-reaching effect of the current economic slowdown. Factory orders are usually a good signal of future production levels.

Jim?

LEHRER: Another 1984 Presidential election milestone was reached and passed today, and it was a simple function of the calendar. Two weeks from today is Election Day. The two candidates marked the day by campaigning in key electoral states. Walter Mondale was in Ohio and Michigan, and in a speech in Ann Arbor he attacked President Reagan for quoting the late John Kennedy.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: Our generation, my generation, the generation of John Kennedy, will never forget that 1960 election. I was the Minnesota chairman of the Kennedy campaign. Reagan was running all over the country calling himself the leader of something called "Democrats for Nixon." And during that campaign he wrote a letter to Mr. Nixon, and I've gotten a copy of it, and I want to read it to you. This letter said the following. It's signed Ronnie Reagan to Mr. Nixon. He said, "One last thought. Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's bold, new, imaginative program with its proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut it's still old Karl Marx, first launched a century ago." He said, "There is nothing new in the idea of government being a big brother to all. Hitler calls his idea state socialism." Now we've got Mr. Reagan running around this country claiming he was a friend of John Kennedy. But in 1960, when we needed John Kennedy and certainly didn't need Richard Nixon, Mr. Reagan was saying Kennedy's ideas came from Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler. I say they came from the idealism of America and they wrested the best of America and there's a big difference and we all know it.

LEHRER: President Reagan was in Oregon today, a western state not as friendly to him as most others. In Portland he encountered hecklers and kept the message on the Mondale plan to raise taxes.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: His economic plan has two basic parts. Two. Raise your taxes and then raise them again. But I've got news for him. The American people don't want his tax increases, and he isn't going to get his tax increases. His tax plan would bring our recovery to a roaring stop, but I'll give it this. His -- [hecklers] You know what? You know what? I may just let Mondale raise his taxes.

LEHRER: There was a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery to remember what happened a year ago today in Beirut, Lebanon. Two-hundred and forty-one Marines and other U.S. servicemen died while on peacekeeping duty. They were asleep in a barracks building at the Beirut airport when a truck of explosives driven by a terrorist suicide squad blew up. It was the highest death toll of U.S. servicemen from a single incident since World War II. Today's ceremony was attended by Barbara Bush, wife of the vice president, and 500 others. Reporter Jeff Goldman reports on today's remembrance.

JOHN KNIPPLE, father of terrorist victim: Their lives may have passed us by too quickly, their deaths too personal and scarcely noticed in the crush of other events.

JEFF GOLDMAN [voice-over]: One year ago today John Knipple lost his 20-year-old son James when terrorists bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Knipple spoke to hundreds of people gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to honor those Marines lost and an estimated 500 people killed by the work of terrorists across the globe. Many families of the Marines and diplomats killed in the line of duty looked on today as a memorial plaque at the base of the cedar of Lebanon was unveiled by four young children. All lost their fathers in the past year by the hands of terrorists. The ceremony was sponsored by No Greater Love, an organization founded to help children of those lost in action. Today children also remembered their loved ones.

MOLLY KEOGH, daughter of terrorist victim: On behalf of children like ourselves, we are proud to have our fathers and all victims of terrorism honored here today, especially those who died trying to further the cause of peace in the world, like my father did.

GOLDMAN [voice-over]: John Knipple summed up the symbolism of today's dedication this way.

Mr. KNIPPLE: May this cedar of Lebanon tree stand as a living symbol of our own deep dedication and determination to carry on the cause for which they gave their lives in the prayerful hope that from this tree peace will surely take root. Through this time of remembrance, a proud and thoughtful nation can reflect upon the courage and bravery and sacrifice of those who died because they had chosen to serve.

LEHRER: There were two other suicide attacks against U.S. facilities in Beirut, of course: in April, 1983, against the United States Embassy, killing 17; against the U.S. Embassy Annex last month, killing two Americans.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: And there is news today of a first from the medical world.A doctor from St. Louis reports that he has successfully performed the first transplant of an ovary and fallopian tube from one woman to another. The surgeon, Dr. Sherman Silber, who is also the first to perform a vasectomy reversal in 1975, says this case is significant because it represents the culmination of a decade of advances in microsurgical procedures for infertility problems plaguing 20% of the population. The surgery is extremely delicate because the fallopian tube is so tiny. At the point where it enters the uterus, it is 170th of an inch in diameter, about the size of a pinpoint. The stitches the surgeon makes are about 1/1000th of an inch thick. Right now the technique can only be performed on identical twins, but Dr. Silber said it may become available on a routine basis some day.

And that wraps up our major stories of the day. Jim? Murder in Manila

LEHRER: Now to our focus segment on the Philippines and the story of two reports on who was responsible for the murder of dissident leader Benigno Aquino. Charlayne Hunter-Gault takes it from there. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, the two reports on the murder of Benigno Aquino have already provoked strong reaction in the Philippines. In Manila President Ferdinand Marcos has come under fire for apparently accepting the findings of the minority report implicating only one general and six non-commissioned officers. Promising that the case would be pushed through to the final resolution, President Marcos ordered immediate prosecution of the seven men, suspended the general from duty, and suspended and restricted to their barracks the six accused subordinates. All of the men have declared their innocence. But Aquino's brother branded the minority report as unacceptable and unfair as a group of opposition supporters demonstrated outside the hall where the report was made public. For more on the events in the Philippines, we turn now to Ross Munro, a Time magazine reporter who covered that country for four years. Earlier this year he was in Manila and is the author of an article on Philippines politics recently published in Foreign Policy magazine.

Mr. Munro, do you have any insight, first, into how the investigating panel came up with such widely differing conclusions?

ROSS MUNRO: Well, I think that you've got to realize that only Mrs. Agrava came up with her dissenting report, which President Marcos seized upon today. There was a gradual process of consensus among all the other commission members, and that report, their majority report, the official commission report, will be out in a few hours in Manila. That's Wednesday in Manila.

HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Well, to use your words, why do you think President Marcos seized upon the minority report so quickly?

Mr. MUNRO: It was very, very characteristic of Marcos. He tried to confuse the issue by treating the minority report the report and he wrapped it all in a cloak of legalisms. It's vintage Marcos, but I don't think he's going to get away with it.

HUNTER-GAULT: We should say, I think, by the way, that Mrs. Agrava was the chairman of the investigating panel, is that not right?

Mr. MUNRO: Yes, she was, but she was speaking only for herself and not the commission today.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that the fact that the majority report implicated the army chief of staff, General Fabian Ver, have anything to do with Marcos' rushing to embrace the other report, which implicated another general who wasn't reportedly as close to Marcos as this General Ver?

Mr. MUNRO: I think there's very little doubt of that, Charlayne. There is increasing evidence that in fact Ver has been telling Marcos in recent days that he isn't going to go quietly, that he wants to remain as chief of staff of the armed forces and that if he's going to go, if he's going to be forced to resign, then Marcos may fall with him. So I think Marcos is now desperately looking for a way of trying to keep Ver on board.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why would Marcos go with him? I mean, how is the association so close?

Mr. MUNRO: Well, I'm not suggesting that President Marcos pressed the button that resulted in the assassination of Nino Aquino. But I am suggesting that General Ver knows where every skeleton in the Marcos family closet is, and he knows a great deal. He has been the man who's taken care of all Marcos' problems for 20 years, almost.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, given the fact that the, as you say, everyone except this Mrs. Agrava has implicated General Ver, can President Marcos afford not to move on him?

Mr. MUNRO: Well, that's precisely the dilemma he faces, and I really believe that right now Marcos is facing perhaps the greatest crisis in his entire political career, because -- he -- is in the twilight of his political career, but he could hang on for one, two, three years at least if General Ver were willing to go quietly and perhaps to go through the motions of a trial. But apparently he's not willing to do that.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, given the very strong message that the U.S. State Department appears to be sending to President Marcos, what options does he have but to accept the majority report?

Mr. MUNRO: I think that he will probably find a way of convincing Ver to step down at least temporarily. In fact the State Department today went a bit further than your newsclip suggested. They said they know very well that Ver is going to be named tomorrow, and they said they wanted Marcos to act on the majority report tomorrow the way he acted on the minority report today, which means the State Department was saying, in effect, put General Ver under house arrest and indict him.

HUNTER-GAULT: If President Marcos does move on the majority report, what impact is this likely to have on the opposition? I mean, Benigno Aquino's brother today branded the minority report as unfair and unacceptable. Is either report likely to assuage the opposition?

Mr. MUNRO: No, the next issue, for instance once General Ver is indicted, the next issue is going to be an independent court and an independent prosecutor, because until we can have an independent prosecutor isolating those underlings who actually pulled the trigger and, in effect, plea-bargaining with them and forcing them to divulge the entire conspiracy, the court process is going to be considered a farce. The court that has been named to deal with this is not a respected court. It's not an independent court. It's like most of the judiciary in the Philippines today -- it's been undermined, subverted and compromised by President Marcos.

HUNTER-GAULT: So overall, briefly summing up, what impact on the Philippines generally do you think that both of these reports and all of the actions that are going on right now are going to have on the situation there?

Mr. MUNRO: It is going to increase in unrest and it's going to work almost as a multiplier with the economic problems that are mounting day by day because of the IMF-imposed reforms which are forcing up the prices of basic goods and supplies in the entire country.

HUNTER-GAULT: But, briefly, you do think that Marcos has a possibility of holding on for two or three more years?

Mr. MUNRO: I think so, but I wouldn't rule out a crisis and a very serious situation over the next few months.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right.Well, Ross Munro, thank you for being with us.

Mr. MUNRO: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a major Issue and Debate segment on defense policy, a pro-con look at where and why the Reagan and Mondale approaches differ. There will also be some questions about terrorism and security in Lebanon one year later.

[Video postcard -- Lake McDonald, Montana] Issue and Debate: Taking a Stand on Defense

WOODRUFF: This week the presidential campaigns have dwelled on the big defense issue, and that's where we turn our focus now in one of our Issue and Debate segments -- the defense issue, which took center stage at last Sunday's residential debate, has, along with the question of taxes, been one of the major differences between the two candidates, differences they have both underscored on the campaign trail.

[voice-over] Last week the aircraft carrier Independence left Norfolk, bound for a routine tour of the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.Just a year ago it was deployed off Grenada, then Beirut. It symbolizes President Reagan's willingness to project force abroad and his campaign for a 600-ship Navy, part of a trillion-dollar buildup Mr. Reagan says will help achieve peace through strength.

Pres. REAGAN: We must complete the task of military modernization and improved readiness. This is directly related to the prospect for arms reductions. In the past we've succeeded best when we've bargained from strength.

Mr. MONDALE [September 5, 1984]: Let's stop this nonsense that there's party of weakness and a party of strength.

NARRATOR [Mondale commercial]: An Army veteran, a solid leader. Mondale's defense plan calls for real growth in military spending, combat --

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Democratic challenger Walter Mondale insists that he has the same commitment to national security. Though more cautious about foreign entanglements, Mondale recognized the political popularity of the defense issue at the very beginning of his campaign and determined it would not be used against him.

Mr. MONDALE [January 3, 1984]: Americans are prepared to pay for strong defenses. I support a strong defense based on a coherent strategy and growing at a steady, sustainable rate. But I refuse to support Mr. Reagan's incoherent program or sign Mr. Weinberger's blank check.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Both Reagan and Mondale want increases in military spending. Mondale says he wants smaller increases, but experts say the difference of just several billion dollars out of an annual budget of nearly $300 billion simply is not that great. They do have significant differences, however, over how defense dollars should be spent, and that is a direct reflection of how they view the Soviet Union. President Reagan, though softening his rhetoric recently, has over the years been more confrontational.

Pres. REAGAN [March 8, 1983]: To ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding --

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Mr. Mondale, tough but conciliatory.

Mr. MONDALE [January 3, 1984]: The job of a president is to both check the Soviets through means short of war and to meet them on the common ground of survival.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: To Mondale the first step toward survival is a verifiable nuclear freeze.

Mr. MONDALE [September 24, 1984]: This election is not about slogans like "standing tall." It's about specifics, like the nuclear freeze. Because if those godawful weapons go off, there'll be no future at all for anyone.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: As part of an overall freeze, Mr. Mondale says he will resubmit the SALT II treaty signed by President Carter to the Senate for ratification. He also proposes a moratorium on testing anti-satellite weapons, a six-month moratorium on underground nuclear testing while resuming talks with the Soviets on a comprehensive test-ban treaty.

Pres. REAGAN: A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable.

WOODRUFF: The President says the Soviets are ahead in some areas and he does not want to lock in their advantage. He also insists the proposed nuclear agreements cannot be verified. That's why Mr. Reagan opposes SALT II. That's why he won't resume test ban talks without Soviet concessions or limit underground nuclear testing. chat's why he does want to match Soviet anti-satellite capabilities. And it was over that issue of Star Wars that the candidates clashed sharply in their Sunday debate.

Pres. REAGAN [October 21, 1984]: If such a defense could be found, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people?

Mr. MONDALE: To commit this nation to a buildup of anti-satellite and space weapons at this time in their crude state would bring about an arms race that's very dangerous indeed.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: To Mr. Reagan, survival depends on rearmament, as expensive as that might be. This B-1 bomber rolled off the assembly line last summer. The President wants 100 of them. He wants 100 MX missiles deployed in super-hardened silos to withstand direct hits. Mr. Nondale rejects both the concepts and the cost.

Mr. MONDALE: Why I disagree with the MX is that it's a sitting duck. It'll draw an attack. It puts a hair trigger and it is a dangerous, de-stabilizing weapon. And the B-1 is similarly to be opposed because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B-1. The secretary of defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built. The final point is that we can use this money that we save on thse weapons to spend on things that we really need.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Mr. Mondale says preparing for ground wars makes more sense than Star Wars, that bolstering conventional strength reduces the chance America would have to resort to nuclear weapons if there were a war. Mr. Mondale and congressional Democrats have been attacking the administration for allowing military readiness to decline despite vast increases in spending -- charges the Reagan administration denies.

Pres. REAGAN: Today every major commander in the field agrees that America's military forces have better people who are better armed, better equipped, better trained with better support behind them.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Who can do it better is what the war and peace issue is boiling down to, and each candidate is making a simple emotional plea.

Mr. MONDALE: Pick a president that you know will know, if that tragic moment ever comes, what he must know, because there'll be no time for staffing, committees or advisors. A president must know right then. But, above all, pick a president who will fight to avoid the day when that godawful decision ever needs to be made.

Pres. REAGAN: He was against the M-1 tank, he was against the B-1 bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of the all of the military. He wanted to bring home half of the American forces in Europe. And he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none. Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the Senate and he opposed even President Carter when, toward the end of his term, President Carter wanted to increase the defense budget.

LEHRER: Here to explain and exemplify the Reagan-Mondale differences on defense are two partisan defense experts, former Ford administration defense secretary and Reagan special Middle East negotiator, Donald Rumsfeld, and Barry Carter, a former member of the National Security Council, now a professor at Georgetown University and senior defense and foreign policy advisor to Mr. Mondale. Mr. Rumsfeld joins us tonight from the studios of public station WTTW in Chicago.

Mr. Rumsfeld, is there a simple way to characterize the Reagan-Mondale difference on defense, in your opinion?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I think there is. I think that if one looks at the record of Senator Mondale, followed by his record as Vice President, followed by his proposals and positions as a candidate for the presidency, there's a pattern, and there's a pattern there that he has been against most of the major new weapons systems throughout his career in federal office.

LEHRER: And what does that add up to?

Sec. RUMSFELD: It adds up to a person who has a view of the world that is fundamentally different from, clearly, the view that the President has and the view that I think successive presidents of both political parties have had since World War II. We have always premised our nation's peace and security on the principal of peace through strength and an adequate deterrent. Senator Mondale, by being against all of these weapons systems and taking positions and then suddenly, late in the campaign, trying to take the middle ground, trying to wrap himself in a tough-talking John F. Kennedy and make himself sound like a combination of General Patton and Dwight Eisenhower, is clearly deviating from his record, his whole view of the world. And I think it's a worrisome view of the world.It's very much the same view that Senator McGovern put forward. It was rejected overwhelmingly.

LEHRER: Mr.Carter, would you agree with that characterization of your candidate's position?

BARRY CARTER: Not only is that partisan, but it's incorrect, and I find it surprising that Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't know better. First of all, Walter Mondale is for a strong defense. He shares that concern with all Americans. He realizes that the Soviet leadership is tough and ruthless, and he backs today, as he's backed consistently, modern, stable, survivable forces, both strategic and conventional. For instance, he's on record, as he's been for quite awhile for the Trident submarine systems, the Stealth bomber, air- and land-based cruise missiles and a whole panoply a weapons systems. What he's not for is for everything that's suggested by someone in the Pentagon. Mr. Reagan has never met a weapon he hasn't liked. Mr. Mondale is willing to make tough choices. And let's talk about Mr. Mondale's Senate record for a second and his Vice Presidential record. Mr. Mondale initially opposed MIRV missiles because he thought we ought to go for survivable weapons rather than destabilizing weapons.

LEHRER: MIRV means multiple warheads, more than one warhead on a missile.

Mr. CARTER: That's right, multiple-warheaded missiles. He opposed those initially because he thought we ought to have survivable, stabilizing forces, and what happened? The Scowcroft Commission, Mr. Reagan's own commission on strategic forces, has recently concluded that it's better to move back toward single-warhead missiles. Mr. Mondale earlier opposed the Trident missile system when it was first proposed because there was a better alternative at that time, the Narwahl system. And what happened there? The Scowcroft Commission again, Mr. Reagan's own commission, has proposed we go to smaller, survivable submarines.

LEHRER: Let me come back to Mr. Rumsfeld on this point that Mr. Carter just made and also Mr. Mondale has made several times during the campaign, and that is that Mr. Reagan's solution to the defense problem is to throw money at it or, to quote Mr. Carter, "he's never met a weapon that he didn't like."

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, that kind of comment, I suppose, is cute and clever, but the reality is that one of the problems a president has, and a defense secretary has, is they, during their time in office, preside over resources, our country's resources, that either enable us to contribute to peace and stability or they don't Now, the decisions they make during their time, given the long lead times, have the effect of leaving resources or the absence of resources for their successors. And it strikes me that what the President's done during his four years in office is to make a very selfless decision. He has admittedly in a controversial area made a judgment that our nation's security in the 1980s and the 1990s required investment now so that future presidents will in fact have the ability to contribute to peace. I think it's the right decision. I would correct the comments that were made. I don't see how a senator can vote against the ABM, the Trident, the B-1, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the C-5A, salary increases for the military, vote to cut troops in Europe and then talk about being for conventional power. I don't see how a Vice Presidential candidate, quoted in Brzezinski's book as being one who argued for reductions in Carter's defense budget along with Eisenstadt, can claim he is for an adequate national defense. And I don't see how a candidate who has gone around the country against the B-1 and against the Minuteman III when he was in the administration and proposing a whole series of unilateral actions, can contend that he has a balanced position.

LEHRER: Mr. Carter?

Sec. RUMSFELD: He simply doesn't.

LEHRER: Mr. Carter, you've just been asked a question.

Mr. CARTER: Well, I would answer that as I've already said. Mr. Mondale is willing to make some tough choices. He is for a whole range of weapons systems that are modern, that are stable, that are survivable. On the other hand, he's willing sometimes to say enough is enough. We don't need to buy every cockamamie scheme that comes down the pike.

LEHRER: Give us an example -- give us an example.

Mr. CARTER: I challenge Mr. Rumsfeld to mention one weapons system Mr. Reagan has ever been against. I've already mentioned two which Mr. Mondale was against in the Senate, will admit, initially, but the Scowcroft Commission, the commission of President Reagan, itself has said that we ought to move toward single-warheaded missiles, that we ought to move toward smaller submarines.

LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld?

Sec.d RUMSFELD: First of all, the President has endorsed the proposals of the Scowcroft Commission, and that's a fact. Second, when it's said that Mr. Mondale is for certain things, I think it's important to distinguish what he's for. He is for things that can't be built now. That is to say he's against the B-1 and for the Stealth because some day it might be coming down the road.

LEHRER: But let's put it back, Mr. Rumsfeld, if I may interrupt a moment, back to where we began a moment ago, and that's on President Reagan.Has President Reagan, to answer Mr. Carter's question directly, has President Reagan ever turned down a request for a major weapons system from the Pentagon?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, of course he has. Every year they go through a budger process and, as anyone familiar with the process dnows, each of the services come forward with proposals, they get put in priority order and then in fact the more urgent ones are in fact proposed to the Congress.

LEHRER: Mr. Carter?

Mr. CARTER: Mr. Rumsefeld has yet to mention a major weapons system that this President has opposed. By the way, Walter Mondale, for instance, is for the Trident submarine today, which is being built. He's for the Stealth bomber, which is well along in development. He's for air-launched cruise missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles, which are being deployed today. Mr. Rumsfeld, if you don't think they're being deployed today, you're way out of touch.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mr. Mondale voted to delay the Trident submarine as a senator, and the Carter administration did delay it.

Mr. CARTER: Well, on the Trident submarine, the Carter administration did not, but more importantly Mondale was for the Narwahl submarine, which the Scowcroft Commission said we should have smaller submarines. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket. We want smaller, survivable submarines. If I could just get to a point. Let's talk about a specific weapons system that Mr. Reagan is for -- Star Wars. I wonder how he can justify that trillion-dollar expenditure to start a new arms race, an arms race in the heavens?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, first I would, in cleaning up the last go-around, remind you that Senator Glenn, who is no Republican, during the campaign said that in his judgment the Mondale record would leave the country's defenses emasculated. That's a direct quote from Senator Glenn. That's not from Rumsfeld or Reagan or Bush. Now, with respect to the Star Wars, as you call it, let me say that I really felt badly about the debate in that context because I heard Fritz Mondale refer to it as a dangerous escalation, a hair-trigger turning over of the war and peace issue to computers. The fact of the matter is that the strategic defense initiative, which is what it's properly called, is in fact a reserach and development program. It does not have a trillion-dollar label billed to it, as you just suggested. It is a raising of an appropriate issue: is it possible to find ways to improve defenses as opposed to continuing to find ways to assure destruction? It's an open question. Now, the Soviets are already working in these areas. It is not clear what the information will provide, but in the event it were possible to provide greater stability at less cost, it would be an advantageous thing to do. No one's talking about deploying anything in the heavens, as Senator Mondale keeps referring to --

LEHRER: Mr. Carter?

Mr. CARTER: Well, first of all, John Glenn has asked for a retraction on that statement of Mr. Rumsfeld. He said he'd like to debate Ronald Reagan, that he's for Walter Mondale and thinks Walter Mondale is a much better choice than Ronald Reagan, if we want to appeal to authority. But let's go to Star Wars, and on Star Wars Mr. Rumsfeld shows the same ignorance that Mr. Reagan showed in the debate. The Star Wars plan includes what is called early intercept of those missiles. The only way that you're going to do it is put a lot of hardware up in the heavens, and that hardware is going to include at one time or another nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons. And that is dangerous. It is leading us to a new arms race, and Mr. Rumsfeld ought to read the studies on that. We're going into the heavens with an arms race.

LEHRER: Okay, and we'll be right back to both of you. Don't go away. Judy?

WOODRUFF: We turn our Issue and Debate segment now to a different defense question: are the candidates on target in the way they have defined the key issues? One man who thinks they are not is Jeffrey Record, a senior fellow at the Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis here in Washington. Mr. Record, you know, we're hearing that Mr. Reagan says that we must continue to build up, Mr. Mondale says that we're spending money for the wrong things. You disagree with both of thern in a way. It that right?

JEFFREY RECORD: As a matter of fact, Judy, I find myself in the marvelous position of more or less agreeing with both Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Carter. It hink that on balance the Reagan administration has thrown an enormous amount of money at the Pentagon in a markedly indiscriminate fashion. The defense budget, in terms of accumulated real increases in the past four years, has gone up by over 40%. Remarkably little in the way of usable combat power has come out the other end of the Pentagon. A lot of it's gone for $7,600 coffeemakers, pay and benefit increases and the like. On the other hand, in all candor I must confess that had every weapons system that Walter Mondale had voted against over the past 15 or 20 years in fact been canceled or defeated, the state of American security would be in a much more perilous position than it is today. The bottom line is, however, that neither President Reagan nor candidate Mondale, in my judgment, is addressing the two $64 issues that confront the security of the United States.

WOODRUFF: And they are?

Mr. RECORD: The first issue is the enormous gap that separates our military commitments overseas and the military power we have available to meet those commitments. For the past 25 or 30 years, certainly since the 1940s when the United States abandoned isolationism as a foreign policy, successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, have undertaken a series of commitments, in many cases casually undertaken those commitments, that long ago outstripped our ability to deliver on those commitments. In the old days when we enjoyed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union and when the Soviet Union itself was not necessarily capable of challenging American interests overseas in more than one area of the world at a time, this gap between commitments and capabilities was not intolerable. Today it is.

WOODRUFF: Are you blaming this on Republican or Democratic administrations?

Mr. RECORD: This is a problem that I would say is bipartisan or apartisan in that both Republican and Democratic administrations have undertaken commitments, and in many cases casually. For example, the Carter administration, of which candidate Mondale was vice American military power to the defense of the Persian Gulf region, perhaps the most distant and logistically remote area of the world and the most difficult for American military forces to defend. That commitment was not attended by any commensurate increase in military power. Something called a rapid deployment force was created, but it was neither rapid, deployable nor a force.It remains today little more than a headquarters.

WOODRUFF: And you were saying there was another point.

Mr. RECORD: The second point is, and I think this is the real issue, is not the question of how much military power we have. Basically the difference between President Reagan and candidate Mondale in terms of defense spending is between three and four percent real terms each year and seven and eight percent real terms. Both are commited to annual real defense spending increases. Both are committed to continuing modermization of our conventional forces. Mr. Mondale would reallocate some money away from strategic forces, nuclear forces, into conventional forces. He would increase conventional force readiness. On balance, though, the issue is whether or not we can apply military power effectively, and again for the past 30 years, even more than 30 years, since the Inchon landing in Korea in 1950, the record of America's actual military performance on the battlefield has been a rather dismal one.

WOODRUFF: Well, what then should the candidates be talking about? What policies should they be espousing?

Mr. RECORD: I think the candidates should be talking about the institutional, organizational and doctrinal deficiencies inside the Pentagon and as well in the relationship between the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the civilian decision-makers in the White House. I think that the institutional deficiencies which led to our defeat in Vietnam, which led to the disastrous outcome of the attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran in 1980, which led to the misapplication of military power in Lebanon with a very disastrous result, that happened exactly a year ago today, are attributable primarily to institutional and organizational deficiencies, which I don't see either candidate addressing or, for that matter, even interested in.

WOODRUFF: Why don't you think they are?

Mr. RECORD: These are difficult issues, and they are very, very complex issues, and there is a tendency, again, on the part of most civilian leaders, to regard many of these issues as being within the purview, within the jurisdiction of the uniformed military. Politicians generally are very, very reluctant to place themselves in the position of attempting to at least appear to tell the military what to do.

WOODRUFF: All right, well, let's open this up now to Mr. Carter and Mr. Rumsfeld.Mr. Rumsfeld, what do you say to what Mr. Record has said, that both candidates are avoiding the really critical issues facing this government?

Sec. RUMSFELD: I think that Jeff raised a couple of useful points. There's no question but that one has to continuously being relating the capabilities and the commitments. That's a useful comment.I would say, second, that it is true that the history of the last decade or so is that we've not been in major conflicts; and in fact, we've been in a variety of incidents and area or regional problems that require a blend of political-military capability and coordination which needs to be improved. I think they both --

WOODRUFF: But what about his point that that Mr. Mondale and the Reagan, neither one, are talking about this?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I think that to a certain extent they are. They're talking about capabilities, and there's no question but that, for example, I would give the President very high marks for working with the Gulf states to make sure there was a very clear understanding in the Gulf as to what the nature of our commitment was end what our capabilities were with respect to fulfilling that commitment. This was done not only with the Gulf states; it was done with our allies in Western Europe; and I think that there was a closing of any gap that might have existed between a level of expectation on their part, having heard the commitment and in fact our capability to deliver. And I think today that they are very close together.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Record, what about that?

Mr. RECORD: Well, I'm not so sure that the relationship between capabilities and commitments in the Gulf today, certainly since the Reagan administration, that that relationship is in that degree of harmony. The Reagan administration came into power declaring was on international terrorism, for example. To date it has yet to take any punitive action against terrorist organizations that have killed over 300 Americans in the Middle East since 1981. It has yet to take any action to protect the critical shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf, despite on at least several occasions declaratory statements by the President of the United States that the United States would simply not stand by and see these lines of communication attacked.

WOODRUFF: Let me stop you right there. Let's go back to you. Mr. Rumsfeld.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I happened to be involved in the process of going around and discussing with, I believe, each of the Gulf states precisely what the U.S. commitment was, what our capabilities were, what would be required by them and what would be required by our Western European allies, and I do believe that there's a great deal of harmony between the level of expectation today on the part of the Gulf states and the capability of the United States to assist those countries in dealing with the kinds or problems that could conceivably occur.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Carter, let me turn to you. What about Mr. Record's overall point, that the candidates are not addressing the discrepancy between our commitments and our capabilities to meet them?

Mr. CARTER: First, I want to agree with Jeff that there is a gap between some of these commitments and the capabilities. And one of the major reasons for that gap is because of heavy spending by the Reagan administration on nuclear weapons and at the same they're shortchanging spending on conventionalweapons. As a result they're raising the risk of nuclear war. We do not have the conventional forces, the reserves, the preparedness, the readiness that we ought to have, and that's because they're spending so much on strategic weapons.

WOODRUFF: But he also faulted Mr. Mondale's opposing, initially, many of the weapons systems.

Mr. CARTER: Well, Mr. Mondale sometimes opposed weapons, like on the F-14, which was discussed in the debate. That was because it was an effort to get the costs down on the F-14, to get the contract renegotiated, and as soon as they got the contract renegotiated so a fair price was being paid, he's supported it ever since. He's always supported the eventual defense appropriations bills, but he demands that a dollar spent is a dollar well-spent.

WOODRUFF: Doesn't that make sense, Mr. Record?

Mr. RECORD: Well, I must say I agree on this issue with Mr. Rumsfeld, that it is far easier to be in favor of the follow-on weapons system which is now in R&D and only runs a few hundred million dollars than to have to make a decision to vote several billion dollars, for example, for a Nimitz-class carrier. The Reagan administration, and there is one category of military power in which the Reagan administration has, in my judgment, made substantial progress in terms of increasing, and that is the size of our surface fleet organized around large-deck carriers of the type which Mr. Mondale opposed. It's very easy to be for something like Stealth bomber, for example, whose technical feasibility remains in question, and be for the Stealth bomber and yet against the B-1.

WOODRUFF: If you could have your wish, what would you ask the candidates to say? What issue, specifically, would you have the candidates address in the remaining two weeks of this campaign?

Mr. RECORD: I think the real issue here is American military effectiveness, which has only a tangential relationship to the size of our forces. It makes no sense to have a defense budget that is half again the size of the preceding administration or of an army of 20 divisions as opposed to 16 divisions if in fact we cannot deal effectively with the military threats that we face. The Grenada operation was, in a large sense, a successful operating. The South Pasadena Fire Department could have beaten the several hundred Cubans on Grenada. Grenada was hardly a test of American military effectiveness, and reports persist of grave and very, very serious errors made at the military level that, against a more formidable enemy, could have invited disaster.

WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. Rumsfeld, he said if he could have his wish the candidates should both start talking about the effectiveness of the military.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I think I'd first say that I would prefer that the campaign had less of the kind of rhetoric that we've heard on this program where, if someone doesn't agree, they call the other people ignorant. And, second, I think I would characterize what Jeff suggested somewhat differently. It seems to me that the thing the American people have got to be concerned about is America's role in the world, and there's no question but that the United States has to have the capability to fulfill that role in the world, and there is no question but that the kinds of incidents which we've seen and which are likely to occur tend to occur at the lower end of the spectrum. That is to say, not up the the nuclear war or major conventional war area, but down in the area of guerrilla war, of terrorism and of regional spot problems. And it requires a different kind of management, a close integration of the political and the military.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Carter?

Sec. RUMSFELD: It requires in some cases different kinds of capabilities.

WOODRUFF: I was just going to say, Mr. Carter, I want you to have a chance here to get in a last word.

Mr. CARTER: All right, well, if that's the case, and I agree with Mr. Rumsfeld that what we have to worry about is these conventional smaller conflicts, So they donht rise to the level of a nuclear conflagration. And in that case what we see the Reagan administration doing, however, is tripling its spending on the procurement of nuclear weapons, Star Wars and all, and not spending for conventional forces. These conventional forces do not have the ammunition they need, they don't have the spare parts they need, or, if they have spare parts, they pay outrageous prices for them, as Jeff pointed out.

WOODRUFF: I don't know whether either or both of those address Mr. Record's --

Sec.d RUMSFELD: They never had the spare parts under the Carter administration. [crosstalk] I have to say one thing. The fact is that Mondale voted against troops in Europe, to cut them, he voted to --

WOODRUFF: All right. We're going to -- this could go on, gentlemen, all evening. We thank you all, Donald Rumsfeld, Barry Carter and Jeff Record, for being with us. Jim? One Year Ago: Lebanon

LEHRER: Finally, it was a year ago today that a terrorist drove a truck through a Marine guardpost at the Beirut airport and into the barracks where Marines and other members of the U.S. peacekeeping force were sleeping. The truck was loaded with explosives. They were ignited; 241 Americans died. Walter Mondale has charged in the campaign that President Reagan has not done enough to combat terrorism of this kind. It's an issue I want to raise now before we go with Mssrs. Rumsfeld and Carter. Mr. Carter, why is this a legitimate issue of this campaign?

Mr. CARTER: Well, I think it's a legitimate issue of the campaign because it demonstrates two things.First it demonstrates failed policies in the Middle East of this administration, and secondly it demonstrates failure of presidential leadership by Roanld Reagan. As for failed policies, four years ago we had progress going on in the Camp David talks between Egypt and Israel. We had generally good, calm situation there relative to today. Now what do we have? We have not only the Lebanon disaster, we have the Camp David accords in serious trouble. We have Jordan going to -- or, King Hussein going to the Soviet Union. We have North Yemen signing an agreement with the Soviets. We have our old ally, Morocco, making a deal with Libya, our worst friend -- I mean, our worst enemy. We have a situation of failed policies there for four years. The situation is much worse than before. And why is that? That's because of failed leadership. They haven't gotten in there and done the hard work.

LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld?

Sec. RUMSFELD: I guess any issue is legitimate in a campaign really in the sense that the American people can judge and they'll either think less of a candidate or more of a candidate, depending on the issues he raises and how he handles them. It seems to me that the problem with the way the terrorism issue is being handled is that it's being handled basically as an attack against America instead of an understanding that the problem is with the terrorists.

LEHRER: How is it an attack against America?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I mean, all we've heard from the Mondale campaign is an effort to blame PresidentReagan for the fact that there's terrorism in the world. I didn't see the British Parliament attacking the Prime Minister Thatcher for the fact that they tried to bomb the British Cabinet. She went ahead and made her speech and they've come forward with some sort of a forum to try to deal with the problem. It is a very serious problem in the world, and it ought to be addressed on a bipartisan basis.

LEHRER: Mr. Carter, he has a point, doesn't he?

Mr. CARTER: Well, we haven't attacked the Reagan administration for the existence of terrorism. What we've said is our failure of policies in the Middle East has caused there to be much less respect for us and much less credibility there. But on the subject of terrorism, I grant you there's going to be terrorism throughout the world. What has happened though, we've seen, time afteg time in Lebanon is a failure by this administration to tackle that problem and protect our troops as they should have been protected, specifically in the Beirut barracks situation, which we're commemorating today. On that situation there were warnings galore to this administration that the Marines could well be attacked by terrorists. There were warnings by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that their location was vulnerable. Mr. Mondale on several occasions prior to the bombing spoke out against their location and said they're vulnerable, move them. Instead the Reagan administration did nothing, left our forces there on an uncertain mission for an uncertain purpose, unprotected, relatively, to what they could have been. It was a failure of leadership by this administration.

LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, as well all recall, the problem was that there were some massacres in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy --

LEHRER: Excuse me.We've got just a few seconds, Mr. Rumsfeld. What is your answer to the charge that it was a failure of leadership of the Reagan administration that there wasn't better security there at those Marine barracks a year ago?

Sec. RUMSFELD: If every time there was an intelligence indication that there could be a problem someplace, nobody from the United States would go out of their house. I mean, the reality is there was a caution frequently when I traveled, and yet still I would go out and travel and meet with people. There are risks in the world and we have to find ways to deter those dangers.

LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld in Chicago, thank you very much for being with us.Mr. Carter, in Washington, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Turning now to a last look at today's top stories.

In the Philippines two reports were released on last year's assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino. In all, three generals and 26 others were implicated in the murder.

In South Africa army troops raided several black townships; 300 people were arrested.

And, here at home with two weeks to go in the presidential campaign, President Reagan and Walter Mondale traded charges about taxes and leadership.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Judy, and we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.