The QDR's Catastrophic Report

It's time to stop passing the buck on defense spending.

BY LAWRENCE KORB, CHARLES KNIGHT | AUGUST 5, 2010

We are delighted to note that Tom Mahnken thinks the report of the Quadrennial Defense Review independent panel "should generate a debate over America's role in the world." It is high time we had such a debate. He also correctly states, "The panel's report stands in stark contrast with the recent report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force." We served on that task force and would be pleased to discuss the stark contrasts between our report and the QDR report in person or before Congress.

But we'd need to begin by pointing out that Mahnken misses the substance and purpose of the Sustainable Defense Task Force's report. Mahnken goes on to say that our report seeks "to curtail America's global role to fit a shrinking defense budget," invoking the international role and pursuit of interests "that have animated American grand strategy since the end of World War II." But the Sustainable Defense Task Force budget adjustments aren't focused on curtailing the interests of the postwar years. Instead, our report focused on pulling back the vastly expanded and more ambitious military missions that have been pursued in the last decade by Washington. Even beyond the mindless, needless, senseless invasion of Iraq, this last 10 years has seen far more extensive (and costly) presence ground missions than were attempted during the Cold War.

Despite the lack of any serious military competitor, U.S. investment in military force has grown well beyond Cold War levels. For example, even controlling for inflation, defense spending is now higher than at any time since the end of World War II, and the base defense budget, exclusive of war costs, is higher than at the peak of the Reagan buildup.

As the Sustainable Defense Task Force sought to demonstrate, failing to make reasonable reductions in military spending in this time of complex fiscal pressures will end up being far more of a threat to U.S. interests than any external enemy. Both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen have pointed out how vital economic security is to national security.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Charles Knight is co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.

NORBOOSE

9:01 PM ET

August 5, 2010

We Really Do Need To Cut Military Spending

If only the politicians would be willing to argue that having unrestricted funding hampers our military's efficiency and, in the long run, will inevitably cause corruption to become much worse of a problem (A scourge to nations that we have blessedly dodged for the most part). When our top military officers ask the politicians to cut their funding we are in a bad place. However, not all defense spending should be cut. Our intelligence agencies should be given all the money we can afford. They are just so perfect and wonderful and deserving, and tall, and sexy, and totally badass. (Id use a smiling emoticon here, but those seem girly)

 

JBROCKLE

12:21 PM ET

August 6, 2010

Bygone Eras

I agree with the author that the V-22 is probably something that could be scrapped. It is a very high risk piece of equipment in that, if it does work. It will be excellent, but if it doesn't, which seems very possible, it will have cost huge amounts of money. The risk/reward doesn't seem to be worth it now.

I'd take issue with the characterisation of the F-35 as a relic of bygone eras. Whilst the program has run into a lot of difficulties lately, I think it can probably be salvaged. A lot of the strategic challenges of the next few decades will be in east Asia. Aircraft carriers will play vital roles in this and having a 5th generation fighter flying from them will be a big advantage. What would the author replace the F-35 with? Start a new 5th gen program from scratch?