Winning the Battle, Losing the War

The Pentagon may have come out of Barack Obama's 2012 budget mostly unscathed, but the military's salad days of limitless spending are over.

BY GORDON ADAMS | FEBRUARY 15, 2011

In U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, released Feb. 14, the Department of Defense will lose $78 billion in spending it thought it would have over the next five years. The administration is touting the proposed cut as evidence of its commitment to overall belt-tightening; the White House claims the cuts will "[bring] defense spending down to zero real growth."

In truth, however, it's no such thing. The $671 billion that Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested for the Pentagon -- a department "base budget" of $553 billion, plus another $118 billion for ongoing wars -- may be less than he asked for last year, when you account for inflation. But the decline is the result of the shrinking costs of the Iraq war as the conflict is scaled down and soldiers return home, offsetting what is still a growing overall budget.

The $78 billion in "cuts," moreover, are at best tenuous. They include savings from a civilian employee pay freeze that the White House had already imposed, efficiency measures in areas like health care, projected personnel reductions years down the road, delays in the development of expensive weapons systems, and rejiggered estimates of inflation rates. Some of these are unpredictable, some may never happen, and all could be reversed by the next defense secretary. And even with these "savings," the Defense Department projects that its budget will grow in real terms for at least the next three fiscal years.

A budget that continues to grow is not one that contributes to deficit reduction. At a time when a small army of bipartisan fiscal reviews -- including the president's own deficit commission -- are recommending that real defense cuts be put on the table, Gates is doing his level best to keep that from happening.

But if the 2012 budget doesn't represent an actual reduction in defense spending, it does suggest something equally remarkable: that the upward trajectory of the Defense Department budget is reaching its inevitable end. Gates is engaged in the fiscal version of trench warfare -- and he is slowly being pushed back from his position, one trench at a time, as the pressures of deficit reduction and the end of the wars that have preoccupied the United States for nearly a decade are brought to bear on the Pentagon.

Such an idea would have been hard to imagine as recently as 2008, when the service chiefs wanted to add more than $50 billion to the fiscall 2010 defense budget. But Obama was elected president and the plan was shelved before it officially reached the White House's Office of Management and Budget; the Pentagon's appetite diminished. Nevertheless, Gates managed to keep real growth in his budget, albeit at a lower level, in fiscal 2010 and 2011.

This year, however, the Pentagon is reaching the top of the mountain -- and it's all downhill from here. Pressure to reduce the deficit is rising on Capitol Hill; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has called the growing debt "the single-biggest threat to our national security." Real cuts are coming, and the Defense Department needs to begin preparing for them.

For the services, shrinking budgets mean they will have to tackle the size of their forces and the hardware investments they plan for the future. While the Navy and the Air Force have already reduced the number of people in uniform, the Army and the Marine Corps have grown by 92,000 over the past decade. Gates has said they will lose 47,000 of those people, but not until fiscal 2015. But to rein in the budget, it will need to happen earlier. He has put on the table increasing enrollment fees for non-Medicare-eligible military retirees, but if his department faces real cuts, they are going to also have to take a hard look at restraining military pay (which has surged ahead of comparable civilian pay) and revisiting a generous retirement system. 

Military hardware investments will also need to be reviewed more deeply. The department has made a start, allowing the F-22 fighter jet and the C-17 cargo plane production programs to end. The new budget takes more steps, slowing research and delaying production on the new F-35 fighter and putting the Marine Corps version of that program on probation for two years (part of Gates's $78 billion savings). He has proposed ending the Marines' new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, but he is letting the Corps keep some of the money to invest in a new amphibious vehicle program -- even though the last amphibious landing the Marines executed was at Inchon in 1950. Navy shipbuilding schedules are being stretched out, with more to come.

Rob Jensen/USAF via Getty Image

 

Gordon Adams is a professor of international relations at the American University School of International Service and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center.

BEINGTHERE

10:54 PM ET

February 15, 2011

Gates is a big whiner - And His boys aren't winning any wars

News reports point to bipartisan cooling to funding a bottomless pocketbook for the "defense industry." Even Republicans are taking a harder look at how highly placed military officials and people like Gates and Mullen have bullied and lobbied their way around Congress and even through the Oval Office. American people are sick of failed, corrupt wars. The fighting, obscene funding and bloodshed have had little influence over the "awakening" among the people of the Middle East who are seeking freedom and their own brand of democracy. Wiki Leaks and the internet have been bigger influencers of the freedom movement in the Middle East than has the U.S. and all its money and might.

Notice, too, that intelligent media re no longer giving Petraeus the passes. Where has the awe gone? They're seeing for themselves the corruption and complete waste of the war, and of its overwhelming burden to the U.S.

 

CURT LEMAY

10:53 PM ET

February 16, 2011

It's Time to Internationalize Oil

The crux of the problem is that peoples of the 14th century have won the lottery: through no merit of their own, they just happen to be sitting on top of crude natural resources. Hell, they didn't know what oil was until we showed them.

It's our own fault. In 1967, we let them nationalize (for the uniformed, read: STEAL) the oil industry from private companies who were paying them as agreed by contract. Now they think they can control the economy of the world with fiats of their backward religion.

We've been going about it the wrong way. We've been playing wack-a-mole with the most uppity of the Arabs when it really would have been wiser economically and militarily if we had just move in and taken over the whole thing for the benefit of the world.

It's time we internationalized oil. We need to move in and militarily occupy the middle east oil reserves and distribute the resources equitably across the globe based upon the needs and benefits that the different national economies provide for everyone on the planet.

What's at stake -- the economic benefit of all human citizens -- deserves no less.

 

JOHNBOY4546

1:28 AM ET

February 16, 2011

What does America get for all that money?

As far as I can tell, it gets military adventurism.

US defense spending could be a tenth of what it is now, and what remains would be more than capable of DEFENDING the United States of America from any enemy.

But US defense spending is what it is so that America can have force projection i.e. the ability to impose itself ON other countries, and not just the ability to protect itself FROM other countries.

The USA voting public has to decide if it really does want to be in that business, but as far as I can tell that topic is so verboten that the American public doesn't even give it a second thought.

How odd..... does Joe America even understand that he belongs to an Empire that is every bit as militaristic as the Ancient Romans?

 

ANON45

4:16 AM ET

February 16, 2011

I'm not sure if you're American,

but i'll speak as if you are. America as a superpower has obligations to defend those who we have binding treaties with, and duties to defend our national interests, which extend beyond our borders in this increasingly globalized world where being able to project power can mean the difference between riots and ensured economic stability.

In short, America must be capable of more than defending the American mainland.

We have binding treaties with both Japan and South Korea in their defence. We have binding treaties under NATO in Europe's defence. We have binding treaties with Israel in their defence. These are our written word as a country, and to abrogate it would hurt our image severely, if it came to the point where we are abrogating treaties we might as well default and refuse to pay our foreign debt, because our days are numbered.

From such a view of scaling back ones spending, we would also have to obviously scale back our goals and expectations. If the goal is a military that is just sufficient to defend the mainland (and lets say our surrounding maritime territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) Then we would have no sure hard power option to respond to Foreign terrorist attacks, or potential economic threats such as a closing of the Suez Canal or the Straights of Hormuz.

These days power projection can be a means to protect oneself as well. Case in point is China building five carriers. That is without a doubt power protection in order to impose its will on others, to the ultimate end of securing its economic lifeline. This is already taken for granted in the US due to our carrier's ability to go all around the world.

You fail to grasp what an empire is. We fit the bill in all but one respect, we are not ruled by an emperor, empress, or oligarchy. Our country is geographically vast and there are numerous ethnic groups within it. So even if all that existed was the mainland United States, we would be an empire by definition if we had an emperor.

As for being as militaristic as the Roman empire, that's a rather hyperbolic and ignorant statement to make.

 

CANADA

8:39 AM ET

February 16, 2011

Anon45 well put

I think you described the real world to these other guys perfectly

 

ANON45

3:44 AM ET

February 16, 2011

An Inevitable defeat then.

The objective was not to win the 'war' (as that couldn't be won), it was to come out of it the least scathed.

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

5:29 PM ET

February 16, 2011

A red Herring

JCVD,

The troops in Europe is a red herring argument. If the US decided to pull them out it would not save money. It would have to relocate all those folks back stateside, and build new facilities or refurbish old ones to accommodate them. The short and medium term costs are actually higher to bring them home than to keep them there.

You need to dig a lot deeper than that to make a dent in the DoD budget.

 

DR. SARDONICUS

9:04 PM ET

February 16, 2011

Imperialism is a loss leader

A superpower has an obligation to top off its oligarchs’ bank accounts at everyone else’s expense. That, and not rational power projection, is what the Pentagon/Congress has done best for the last half-century. And if you think we don’t suffer from an oligarchy, you haven’t paid attention to the Supreme Court, lately: “For corporations we fairy wand into human beings, contrary to the Constitution we feel free to violate at will, let there be Boutique Representation Without Taxation!”

It has always been a conservative daydream that the United States garrison the entire world. Now, you saber-rattlers have achieved it. Happy? Aside from making us the most feared and despised nation on Earth (right after Israel, our fifty-first state), what, exactly, has your OCD hyperactivity brought us?

Realistically, a debt worth 14 and change trillion-with-a-T dollars, and a planet-full of other problems – international and domestic – with no rational (i.e.: non-firepower) means to address them. You name it: infrastructure, transportation, public health, finance, education, legal (not justice) and prison systems that are the envy, maybe, of Burkina Faso; and a food industry transformed into a delivery system for cheap, leisurely lethal poisons. And that’s just at home. The rest of the world is a worse mess. Not your problem, except at gunpoint.

But relax; we can garrison the entire world as long as nobody starts shooting at us in earnest, at home or abroad. And once they start, for whatever reason, I’m sure the Pentagon has a thirty-million-combatant Plan for that, which the lot of you inside the Beltway would fall over yourselves to endorse.

For a man equipped with a hammer and nothing but, the world turns into his thumb. Figure it out.

 

GUYVER

10:06 PM ET

February 16, 2011

Well put Dr. Sardonicus!

You described the REAL world to these other guys perfectly!

 

PKOULIEV

3:23 AM ET

February 18, 2011

American Military and its influence on its allies

Since American military already trains many officers from 'ally' countries, these foreign military personnel have to learn not only military skills, but also many other values coming form our society. Otherwise, these trained military people act like mercenaries for corrupt regimes in suppressing their own people. Eventually, our army's expenses will go down due to having more open societies and more transparency in 'allies' armies using US funds efficiently.