A Defense Budget Without a Defense Strategy Posted by Max Bergmann

The release of the Bush administration's defense budget, like all of their previous budgets, increases defense spending without making any hard choices. This is the highest level of defense spending since WWII. But it is not just the numbers that we should be concerned with. Just as worrying is the complete incoherence of the Bush administration on defense policy.

The Bush administration came in to office pushing the concept of military "transformation." Warfare was going to be transformed through new technology and they set out investing in new advanced conventional weaponry that would emphasize firepower and speed. Their approach to warfare vividly played out in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we relied on a light footprint and overwhelming firepower that left us unable to stabilize either country.

Yet things appeared to change with the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates, the promotion of David Petraeus and the elevation of counter-insurgency doctrine, and the decision to increase the size of the Army and Marines - after resisting for the previous six years. Each of these developments seemed to reflect a clear rejection of Rumsfeld's vision of military transformation and an acknowledgment that a military must do more than just destroy things. It also must be able to protect and secure populations – a mission that we were not adequately prepared for. Such a shift in strategic focus should have had a dramatic impact on budget priorities. Yet it hasn’t.

Instead the Bush administration’s current defense budget looks remarkably similar to the budgets under Rumsfeld. Despite the seeming moderation of Gates, we continue to lack any clear strategic direction on defense spending. The Bush administration has still only cut two major weapons program during its tenure (both were for the Army) and we continue to spend billions on weapons programs that reflect security concerns of a bygone era. As Larry Korb and I recently wrote in a recent CAP report called Restoring American Military Power: Toward a New Progressive Defense Strategy for America:

Our military is lopsided. Our forces are being ground down by low-tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the most immediate threat confronting the United States is a terrorist network that possesses no tanks or aircraft, while the Pentagon—the world’s largest bureaucracy—remains largely fixated on addressing the problems and challenges of bygone era. This focus has left our military unmatched on the conventional battlefield but it also left the U.S. military less prepared to deal with the emerging irregular or non-traditional challenges that we as a country are most likely to confront.

There are some obvious systems to cut: the DDG-1000 Navy Destroyer, the V-22 Osprey, either the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, National Missile Defense and space weapons programs.  But it is also important to realize that the next administration is not just going to be left with a real budget mess, but a Pentagon that is strategically adrift.

Comments

[Lane Brody]

This is exactly why many will not trust Democrats on matters of national defense. The nation now spends 4% of GNP on defense. JFK spent around 9%. It was 14% during Korea. Discussions about defense spending are too important to begin them with ridiculous statement about spending levels.

Saying we must cut X or Y weapon system is not very helpful. Either the nation needs, frex, an air superiority fighter or not. Planes do not last forever. We increase the average age of the nations warplanes at our peril. The real issue is not the F-22 but the F-15's we've been flying past their prime that are no falling apart in flight. Either we need an air superiority fighter or not. If the mission exists then we need to start replacing F-15's yesterday. The nation needs far more F-22's.

Cutting the F-35 is simply a non starter and a ridiculous statement to make considering the varied aircraft it's going to replace in the USN, USMC, and USAF as well as many of our allies who are partners in the program.

The mess in procurement gets bigger every year. Not buying new ships for the Navy simply means the existing ships get older and every single year the backlog of how how many ships we need to replace existing ships get bigger. This is the same for most things. Trucks, tanks, planes, and ships do not last forever and wear out. They need to be replaced.

The real issue of is what we need the military to do and thus what they need in order to do the job the nation assigns them. This must be a bi partisan decision if we are ever going to gain any cost savings by rational procurement choices.

To put it simply if the nation agrees it needs 1,000 fighter planes and they last say 25 years then we should buy 40 planes every year. What we actually do is buy no planes for a decade then complain how expensive planes. Same for ships and everything else. The reason the cost of ships is so high is because we bought so few in the 1990's and allowed the companies to die off or merge to the point there is no longer any competition. Congress saw a decade of testimony on the Hill that this was coming and it should be no surprise to anyone.

The V-22 is very expensive and has problems. It's fine to talk about cutting it but the main issue is not the V-22. Rather it is the 40 year old CH-46's the USMC still flies. They needed to be replaced a decade or more ago. Cutting the V-22 means some other aircraft must be purchased for the existing need.

Both Clinton and Obama agree the US Army must be increased and have pledged to do as have both McCain and Romney. Maybe they are all right and that is what the nation needs but the real driving cost in the Pentagon is personal not weapons. Our next President is not going to be able to cut defense spending given the desire to increase it's size and the continued age of our existing systems. The average age of USAF aircraft is the highest it has ever been. We literally are driving trucks, Bradley's, helo's, etc., to death. All this stuff needs to be replaced.

I agree with you that the USAF fantasy list of space weapon systems is over the top but some aspects there are actually needed. Hardening some of systems and having some redundancy is prudent.

In order to afford what we need we need to make actual hard choices in force structure. We can not simply continue to underfund existing force structure. It's criminal negligence. People die in old aircraft. People die when we send them to war without the kit they need.

My suggestion is we cut redundant force structure. Personally I would cut half the aircraft in the USAF and move the other half to the other services. The high low mix of aircraft rationale died with the Cold War.

Force structure costs X. We simply have to pay a percentage of X every year or decide we need 8/10 of X and pay that. Funding should be multi year and long term and rationale based on a national consensus.

[LT Nixon]

As a US Senator from a state building a giant space laser to put on the moon that will strike fear into the great communist threat, I find this post ridiculous.

Oh, I mean this is well written, thanks. I think replacing Rumsfield with Gates was one of the few good things Bush did. It's sad to hear that the Pentagon folks haven't gotten up to speed yet though.

[sevgi]

I agree with you that the USAF fantasy list of space weapon systems is over the top but some aspects there are actually needed. Hardening some of systems and having some redundancy is prudent.

ilan
Firma
Oyun

[atv izle]

As a US Senator from a state building a giant space laser to put on the moon that will strike fear into the great communist threat, I find this post ridiculous.

[bedava oyunlar]

Our military is lopsided. Our forces are being ground down by low-tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the most immediate threat confronting the United States is a terrorist network that possesses no tanks or aircraft, while the Pentagon—the world’s largest bureaucracy—remains largely fixated on addressing the problems and challenges of bygone era. This focus has left our military unmatched on the conventional battlefield but it also left the U.S. military less prepared to deal with the emerging irregular or non-traditional challenges that we as a country are most likely to confront.
Oyun

[hekimboard]

This focus has left our military unmatched on the conventional battlefield but it also left the U.S

[firmalar]

good archives thanks you

[cicicocuk]

Very good show! keep on demicracyarsenela
Oyun

[torbej]

very thanks for you!!
Oyun | Eleman | Otel | Otel

[oyunlar]

THANKS ALOT

[firma]

thank you very good article