Few people listened more closely to Mikhail Gorbachev's announcement of a unilateral cut of 500,000 in the Soviet armed forces than the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. On issues as disparate as the start negotiations and military involvement in the Persian Gulf, William Crowe (rhymes with how), 63, ultimately speaks for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines as the President's top uniformed adviser. TIME senior correspondent Bruce van Voorst talked with him in his Pentagon office.
Q. What are the military consequences of Gorbachev's proposal?
A. If he makes good on his promise, I would consider it a very welcome move. The reductions he's proposing do not redress the conventional balance in Europe, but removing tank divisions, cutting people and taking out some of the "offensive" systems like bridging equipment will change the military calculus. This could be significant, particularly in terms of warning time. Personally, I suspect he'll go through with it.
Q. Why did he go for a unilateral cut?
A. I see this in terms of Gorbachev's larger goals. He wants to improve the economic situation, and for this he needs time, stability and foreign capital.
Q. To become a greater threat to the West?
A. That depends. My instincts are that he cannot do the things that are necessary to genuinely improve the nation's economy and still have it remain an autocratic Communist society. He will have to decentralize authority, educate his citizenry more broadly; he's got to initiate data-processing systems and information networks throughout the country. He must increase international contacts. When you do that, you play with the guts of the system.
Q. Has Gorbachev seized the diplomatic initiative from the West?
A. There's always that danger. But in fact his unilateral action affirms the wisdom of what we've been doing. He appears to have decided that massive military investments do not give him a suitable return, because the West is determined not to be intimidated. We've said all along the Soviets have more military than they need. He's responding to our agenda. But we're dealing with a first-rate politician, and he's bound to harvest some political goodwill.
Q. You were host to Chief of Staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev this summer and found him very congenial, but suddenly he's retired, and it is rumored he's at odds with Gorbachev.
A. Marshal Akhromeyev invited me to a reciprocal visit but cautioned that he might retire by then. He's 65, was wounded in the war and mentioned his health. I presume he'll remain a key military adviser. He's sent word that the General Staff looks forward to receiving me next summer as planned.
Q. But does he disagree with Gorbachev's unilateral troop reduction?
A. Instinctively, I don't think so. He's a strong supporter of Gorbachev's perestroika. In our talks he emphasized that for the arms process to be effective, both sides must make concessions. He is aware of the need to reduce asymmetries, but emphasized that both sides must take steps to ameliorate them. I can't imagine he took such vigorous exception to the Gorbachev proposal that he would resign over that.
Q. You know that other elements of the U.S. Government were not overjoyed at the Chairman "negotiating" with the Soviets.