http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/05/20/stifgnusa02001.html?

When President George W Bush visits the United States navy academy at Annapolis later this week, his speech on changing America's military strategy is certain to be cheered to the rafters by a new generation of white-gloved officer graduates. At the Pentagon they will not be so happy.

Bush's plans for a radical shift of American military focus from Europe to the Pacific and his intended development of a hugely expensive anti-ballistic missile shield are encountering mounting resistance from military chiefs and their supporters in Congress.

America's allies are also alarmed at renewed indications of a precipitate withdrawal of US troops from Bosnia.

In Washington a political battle is looming as Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's hawkish defence secretary, presses ahead with a strategic review. This has upset US generals and provoked warnings from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill that defence budgets will be blocked if reforms are not properly discussed.

Overseas there is continuing concern at threats by Bush - who is to meet Russia's President Vladimir Putin for the first time on June 16 in Slovenia - to breach the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to reduce US commitments in the Balkans.

Rumsfeld's claim that the US military job in Bosnia was "done three or four years ago" was dismissed by one western source as a "profound misunderstanding" of the 1995 peace accords and "playing into the hands of the extremists".

A hard-nosed political operator who was defence secretary under Gerald Ford, Rumsfeld emerged from his Pentagon bunker last week to announce radical proposals for a shake-up to divert American resources from traditional cold war bases to perceived missile threats from China and North Korea.

Rumsfeld's aggressive handling of what one adviser termed a "revolution in military affairs" has stirred anger and scepticism in Pentagon ranks.

Admiral Dennis Blair, head of the US Pacific Command, has publicly doubted that Chinese missiles could threaten his bases while General Gordon Sullivan, army chief of staff from 1991 to 1995, said the Bush administration's preference for space defence in place of ground forces was "easy but erroneous".

Another senior general said that any strategic shift should not come at the expense of America's presence in Europe.

"We have a big task in Europe. I think there is a tremendous benefit that would be lost if you tried to do everything from fortress America," he said.

Perhaps most damaging for Bush has been the widespread complaint that Rumsfeld, 68, has excluded Pentagon brass from much of the strategic review.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who ran as vice-president with Al Gore last year, warned last week that "now was the time to bring Congress and the uniformed services in on the review". Even Trent Lott, the Republican leader in the Senate, has reportedly complained about being left "in the dark".

Also worried are reserve army officers who believe their units will be the first to be squeezed when the bills start arriving for Bush's missile shield. Jay Spiegel, a former Pentagon official and executive officer of the Reserve Officers Association, warned last week that America's ability to fight another campaign such as Desert Storm against a rogue dictator such as Saddam Hussein might be compromised.

"I don't believe we are at the point where you can win a land war exclusively from space," said Spiegel.

Rumsfeld has struck a conciliatory pose, saying no decisions have been taken and a range of opinions is being canvassed.

The first test of the Bush team's willingness to accommodate dissenting opinions may be Bosnia, where Rumsfeld has declared he is "pushing" to withdraw US peacekeepers.

European troops in the region continue to be dependent on US forces for a wide range of military assistance, from strategic lift capacity to air protection.

A western diplomatic source in Bosnia said that even with US involvement, Nato had been effective "only at keeping the three sides apart". By hinting at an American withdrawal, Rumsfeld was "killing off the chances of moderates just as they began to make some progress".

While few in Bush's team pay much heed to European dismay, senior figures in Washington have warned that a softer touch may be required at home.