This week, the White House asked congress to increase the Pentagon’s budget by nearly 5 percent. And, in late January, a classified document made headlines when it revealed that the Pentagon plans to boldly reshape U.S. military forces in the coming years. The document reportedly sets an agenda for military transformation far beyond those previously touted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others. But the outcome of this push for change is far from certain. Months of internal Pentagon and congressional wrangling over which programs to expand and which to cut are still ahead. If the Pentagon wants to get transformation right, it should scale back funding for some of its most prized high-tech programs and put the cash back into one of its greatest assets: the fighting men and women of the U.S. Army and Marines.
Where the money should be cut:
Space-Based Radar (Air Force) The Air Force’s proposed space-based radar is an expensive and unnecessary program. The idea is to have two to three dozen satellites orbiting Earth, allowing constant battlefield tracking of targets anywhere, anytime. That sounds great, but the cost is just as sky high. Each satellite will cost nearly $1 billion, despite longstanding Pentagon claims to the contrary—and that figure doesn’t even include launching them into orbit. Unmanned aircraft, and other surveillance tools used over combat zones, are just as effective and much cheaper. Savings:$20 billion over 10 to 15 years
V-22 “Osprey” Tilt-Rotor Aircraft (Marine Corps) The Marine Corps wants 450 Ospreys. It should only get 100 for use in special operations. This aircraft, designed to replace helicopters for ferrying Marines to the battlefield, is significantly faster and longer in range than modern choppers. But less-expensive helicopters can be refueled, expanding their reach. And Ospreys, like helicopters, are still vulnerable when landing and taking off, when speed matters least. Savings: $5 billion over 10 years
Trident Submarine and Trident II Nuclear Missile (Navy) From the oceans’ depths, the United States has tremendous nuclear overkill, much more than it needs. The Navy wants to keep 14 Trident submarines at the ready. Not only should that number be trimmed to eight but the Trident II nuclear missile program should be scrapped, too. When U.S. submarines cruise at sea, they are vulnerable to attack from no one. They will remain peerless for many years—probably decades. With so much quality, the military can afford less quantity. Savings: $5 billion over 10 years
Virginia Class Attack Submarine (Navy) Cuts in the Navy’s submarine fleet should go deeper still. The Virginia Class subs are extremely stealthy, but they are less needed now than when they were conceived. The Pentagon should have 20 of these advanced submarines on call, not 30. Buying a modest number of Virginia Class subs will provide a “silver bullet” force for use in the most dangerous waters (near China or in the Persian Gulf, depending on how threats evolve). And existing Los Angeles class subs can be rebuilt or refurbished to fill out the remainder of the needed fleet. Savings: $10 billion over 10 years
Joint Strike Fighter (Air Force, Marines, Navy) The Joint Strike Fighter is intended to be the new combat workhorse for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy, replacing existing planes such as the Air Force’s F-16. There is certainly a place for this next-generation fighter jet in the U.S. military arsenal: Its stealth capabilities make it perfect for attacking heavily defended targets. But the Pentagon should fill out a purchase order for 1,000 Joint Strike Fighters, not 2,500. Most existing aircraft can be refurbished for far less. The F-16, for instance, is generally not vulnerable in combat today, and its performance is improving with more precise munitions and better electronics. And with so much progress being made in the development of unmanned combat vehicles, it makes little sense to buy 2,500 manned aircraft now. Savings: $40 billion over 20 years
Where the money should go:
Troops for the U.S. Army and Marines The military needs additional ground troops more than it needs supersonic airplanes, stealth submarines, or secret satellites. U.S. ground forces are being seriously overworked in Iraq, not to mention ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Active duty divisions are being sent back to Iraq after just one year at home since their last deployment. Reservists are being activated at about twice the pace that the Pentagon itself considers maximally sustainable, 150,000 out of the roughly 500,000 Army National Guard and Reserve troops that have been mobilized at any given moment since Sept. 11, 2001. The bottom line is this: The Army needs 20,000 new troops a year for as long as the mission in Iraq remains demanding. And the size of the Marine Corps should be increased proportionately to the size of the Army. The Marine Corps is about one third the size of the Army and it is bearing about one third of the burden in Iraq. Marines may represent a slightly different demographic than Army troops (they are generally younger and less likely to have families) but fairness dictates that the two branches be treated alike. The Marines should scale back their ongoing and excessively large deployment to Okinawa, Japan. But only more personnel will relieve the burden they’re carrying in Iraq. Adding to the ranks won’t be cheap—the costs will probably run roughly $5 billion each year for every 25,000 troops added—but if the Pentagon made even some of the cuts outlined above, it would be manageable. And there’s no arguing that investing in the men and women on the frontlines is worth every penny.
Michael O’Hanlon is senior fellow and holds the Sydney Stein Jr. chair in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.
FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor. Readers should address their comments to Letters@ForeignPolicy.com.
