‘We shrink from our global responsibilities at our peril, as retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later — indeed as they always have in the past.”
That’s how Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded his presentation about why the Obama administration would cut $78 billion from the Pentagon’s five-year budget. Not the most effective sales pitch: After 30 minutes of explaining the need for relatively small near-term savings, in 15 seconds he made it clear that the long-term price was unacceptably large.
Advertisement
These reductions were direct orders from the White House. While Gates managed to limit the damage, perhaps by as much as $50 billion, this is simply a continuation of the pattern begun in 2009. Obama’s defense cuts will have a compound, long-term effect on the overall purchasing power of the military. We won’t know the total extent of this year’s cuts for some time, including whether the “two-year probation” given to the Marine version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is simply a stay of execution. Nonetheless, the Obama years have seen more than $350 billion in weapons modernization alone eliminated from the defense budget.
The collective cuts have taken a huge toll on the military. Killing the Army’s Future Combat Systems program not only deprived the service of a new generation of ground combat vehicles — for the fifth time since the end of the Cold War — but threw a monkey wrench in an innovative plan to “network” the force (which means, roughly, bringing it from the age of the Atari to the age of the iPhone). The shrinking of the Navy to fewer than 280 ships means the smallest fleet since World War I, when it shared the ruling of the world’s waves with the British Royal Navy.
The “Age of American Air Power” of the 1990s crashed with the 2009 termination of the F-22 Raptor. The Raptor had been the ultimate don’t-even-think-about-it message to potential adversaries; indeed, reports recently surfaced that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il hid underground for over a week last year when the U.S. was hosting exercises in the region out of fear of attack from an F-22. And with the fate of the short-take-off version of the F-35 uncertain and the killing of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Marine Corps’s future as a “forcible-entry” amphibious force — that is, the Marines as they’ve existed since World War II — is in serious doubt. In sum, Donald Rumsfeld’s idea to “skip a generation” of weapons modernization is being realized.
But more shocking than the weapons cuts was Gates’s announcement that the active-duty strength of the Army and Marine Corps will be trimmed by 47,000. This is especially jarring in light of the simultaneous announcement of an additional “surge” of 1,400 Marines into Afghanistan this month. Indeed, if the post-9/11 wars have proved one thing, it is that the land forces of the United States are too small. The Bush administration refused to expand the Army and Marine Corps until the 2007 Iraq surge, arguing that by the time new units could be organized and trained, the fighting would be over. Obama seems determined to repeat the folly of strategy-by-end-strength, again limiting combat commanders’ choices by constraining the resources available. The troop cuts aren’t supposed to take effect until 2015 — by which time the president has promised to be “out” of Iraq and all but out of Afghanistan — but they will begin to shape recruiting and retention almost immediately. Gates once led the charge to “win the wars we’re in,” yet he works for a commander-in-chief who’s interested only in ending the war he’s in. Our armies were too small before 9/11. They’ve been too small to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously — we have a “one surge at a time” force. Cutting land forces now can only make the “Long War” longer.
Some things have changed since 2009, however: There’s a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a strengthened minority in the Senate. And these proposed defense cuts pose an early test of character for the House leadership in particular.
That's right authors - spend, spend, spend. Police the world. Engage in never-ending military engagements. Spill more precious American blood. Perpetuate the military-industrial-complex (IE. Corporatism). Hey, let's send troops into Iran while we're at it. Let's live in constant fear. Let's embroil ourselves in "foreign entanglements." Forget what Washington said. Forget that Madison said, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
What the heck did the Founding Fathers know about "National Security" anyway? We The People need to keep living A Bug's Life believing that the grasshoppers are telling us the truth and just want to keep us safe as they pat us and down and destroy our wealth.
This is why I am not a Conservative. I reject the tired old line spun in this article. Let freedom and liberty ring Americans.
Well of course all this is a game for Obama and the Democrats. They don't care about defense but want to set the stage for a budget fight with Republicans so their minions in the MSM can say, "See Republicans don't want to cut their favorite programs the hypocrits."
Thanks for this article, everyone should write two checks a year one to NRO Online and one (sorry NRO)even more important than that to The Heritage Foundation.
Donnelly, Eaglen, and Fly...good article...GET RID OF THE WASTE or GET CUT!!! As for the two "wars"...quit fooling around fighting a PC wars, crush the enemy and let us come home!!!
That's right authors - spend, spend, spend. Let's not just spend $2 billion per day. Let's double it to $4 billion PER DAY. Police the world. Engage in never-ending military engagements. Spill more precious American blood. Perpetuate the military-industrial-complex (IE. Corporatism). Hey, let's send troops into Iran while we're at it. Let's live in constant fear. Let's embroil ourselves in "foreign entanglements." Forget what Washington said. Forget that Madison said, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
What the heck did the Founding Fathers know about "National Security" anyway? We The People need to keep living A Bug's Life believing that the grasshoppers are telling us the truth - that they just want to keep us safe (as they pat us and down and destroy our wealth).
This is why I am not a Conservative. I reject the tired old line spun in this article. Let freedom and liberty ring Americans and end this never-ending state of war.
NRO, and Jonah in particular, wasn't concerned with combat effectiveness during DADT repeal. Who cares? The best weapons in the world can't compensate for a lack of unit cohesion. But what do I know, just 22 years as a USMC officer. Keep the money, buy medical supplies and body bags.
Sorry, but there's plenty of room to cut in the defense budget, and plenty of badly-functioning white elephant programs that can be eliminated. Has it occured to the authors that cutting the budget wouldn't be as much of a problem if defense contractors and inept Pentagon program management weren't driving up the price of new weapons dramatically? The Nimitz class carriers had a price tag of $6 billion apiece. The replacement Ford class? Maybe as much as $15 billion, and for what? EMALS and an Aegis radar on the island? Hell, go back to the Nimitz if it's going to cost us that much. The fact is that like everywhere else in the federal government, there's room to cut in the Pentagon budget.
If the price we must pay to continue to fight for freedom for a bunch of ingrate, 8th century barbarians is the elimination of important weapons systems I say to heck with the Afghanis. Our money would be better spent building F-22s and maintaining a strong defense. I used to believe in our commitment to the fight in Afghanistan; but the more I think about it the more I don't see what purpose it is serving. The Taliban will take back over - so what. Use cruise missiles and drones to limit their power. Repressive regime that abuses its own people takes over - don't care. I'm tired of being blamed for all the world's problems and our efforts not being appreciated. For that matter bring our troops home from any country that doesn't support us - and I'm looking straight at Europe and Korea. Isolationism may not work; but I no longer really care what happens in these other places - let's look after our own first.
bobbymike, it isn't just Democrats that favor defense cuts. If you actually ask the people what they want, they don't want to touch Social Security, they don't want to touch Medicare, but they do want defense cuts.
Republicans on the other hand want to cut and privatize Social Security, cut and voucherize Medicare, and not touch defense spending. Couple that with the vast difference in taxing policy (between the people and Republicans), and you arrive at a somewhat politically unsustainable position.
Furthermore, the people do agree that defense spending is "qualitatively different obligation of government than providing social services, health care, “internal improvements,” or economic development." However, the conclusion they reach about this qualitative difference is the opposite.
There's no waste, fraud nor abuse in the DoD budget? Can we not find some place to cut? We are approaching a debt crisis and this is not the time to lament efforts to reduce spending.
"Security is the first priority of the federal government" so says this article's subtitle says.
Yes indeed, but security for Americans living in America, not for Europeans and especially not for East Asians who are rich and becoming richer than we are. As I've stated in NRO postings before the Pax Americana is no longer sustainable. At some point Congress is going to have to choose to keep military bases in Japan and Europe or mail out Social Security and Medicare checks to tens of millions of retiring Baby Boombers (10,000 Boomers per day hitting age 65 now for the next 19 years). Since Japanese and Europeans don't vote in America, how do you think Congress is going to choose?
America's military decline is inevitable, so let us accept it and look forward to its long term benefits to America. "The long-term price is unacceptably large" as stated by this article's authors only applies to people living outside America. It is they who will have to bear the consequences of the increase in wars and anarchy in the world that comes from the decline of American military power, not Americans. We still have our weak and friendly Canadian and Mexican neighbors, 2 protective oceans and the ability to defend our shores from invasion. Take my word for it, we can keep the Chinese navy out of California even if we cut our defense budget by 50%.
It is true that American corporations derive income from overseas operations and that international commerce will suffer and decline in a more violent post American world. But, America can easily offset those losses by not having to spend billions of dollars protecting the world as we are doing now and spending that money in America instead. Heck, a more violent world means an increase in defense spending for countries normally accustomed to the American taxpayer carrying their defense burdens for them. So, any money lost by the MacDonalds corporation from selling hamburgers in Japan and Europe can be offset by Northrop-Grumman selling those folks high tech weaponry to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay.
Bottom line: America has been the world's sugar daddy and patsy long enough. We can't afford it any more. When we are relieved of being the world's thankless policeman, America will be just as safe and more prosperous.
Reading the preamble to the US Constitution, it appears that securing the common defense is 3rd or 4th on the list, not first (depending on whether or not ensuring a more perfect union is really a directive).
The bottom line is that these cuts are always presented as false choices, by both the left and the right. Say you need to cut school budgets, and liberals always reach for the axe to go cutting teachers and increasing class sizes, and eliminating subjects such as science, and materials such as toilet paper. Never do they go after the bureaucracies and infrastructure of crony contracts, billion dollar school construction in failing districts, bloated pensions.
Same with the right, say we need to cut the military budget and they head for the front lines, to sell off the troops' rifles, body armor, whatever.
We have something like 1000 military bases around the world manned by a couple million soldiers and we spend billions in materiel, transport costs, logistics, etc. An intelligent repurposing of scarce resources to where they actually will have a real impact on common defense, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and other key trouble spots, and away from where they are not needed, will relieve pressure on the front lines as well as allow us to be safe at home while spending less overall. You could put reservists back into reserve, maintain the same number of troops, shorter rotations. A win/win for everyone except the entrenched special interests who would lose money and political leverage.
Don Rumsfeld estimated $12-13 billion in immediate savings from closing some 200-300 facilities, but sacred cows such as military owned ski resorts and contracts for maintenance and support of these facilities to special crony interests cannot trump reality.
We are out of money. We cannot bankrupt ourselves maintaining endless military presence everywhere in the world, just like we cannot bankrupt ourselves maintaining endless unemployment benefits and public employee pensions pensions.
It is high time Western Europe set up to the plate and start providing its own defense.
They have only been able to afford their socialist tyrannies thus far on the backs of the American taxpayer.
How are we to afford constructing our own socialist tyranny while at the same time providing for the defense of people who work 35 hours a week and start employment with a minimum of 6 weeks paid vacation?
Don't cut ....... ? Spiraling US Debt and Economic misery are more important national security concerns than fighting people who live in the middle ages. Stop the spin please! When Bill O'Reilly thinks it time to stop this stupid nation building stuff, then it is time to stop.
I echo somerandom's comment above and would like to repeat the question posed by Col. David Hackworth; "Can somebody tell me why the US needs two armies, two navies and five air forces?". There is massive waste in the military, there is also (IMHO) a huge mistake being made with the concentration of effort in maintaining/securing a hold on ME and central asian energy sources. Mexico is rapidly turning into a failed narco state and Canada is being surreptiously moved from US orbit. These are major security problems for the US, who the hell cares about Afghanistan?
Every time we have cut defense spending in the past it has led to a world war. With China on the horizon, the Russians bulking up, and South and Central America pushing against the U.S. now is not the time to sit by and watch our defense crumble. It does no good to have great S.S. and medicare benefits if we have to speak Chinese and believe me they won't care that we get benefits. Europe is a disaster and has no creditable military force or the money to build one because they put social services ahead of their defense and depended on us. Short sightedness leads to disaster--al la obama
As I have posted here before a top down review of how we supply and base our forces would be very welcomed. How many troops and how many bases do we really need in Europe now? Places where our bases play an important role in keeping the peace or enable us to quickly strike against our enemies are very important.
However I think a lot of people ready to slash our defense budget still don't realize that our enemies will not accept our withdrawal until it is proven that we can't retake our place as the world's leading military power. They will not feel secure conquering Taiwan, destroying South Korea or eating up former Socialist Republics until they are sure we are gone and never coming back.
All of our enemies know that no matter what short term thoughts Americans have about getting the heck out of the world, only defending ourselves and having peaceful relations with all. We don't really mean it. Americans have lines in the sand and allies around the world. Cross those lines and America will respond. Our enemies know that. On defense spending we are deciding how EASY we will make it on our enemies to fight us in the future or how HARD. A big defense Budget now is onerous and very difficult but it is better than trying to suddenly spend in a new and sudden war whose timing and character is dictated by our enemies.
Trust me, the Chinese doesn't have to send their navy into California to knock us off. They displayed their long-term intentions 3 years ago by knocking one of their own satellites out of the sky w/ a missle. The obvious and unspoken message: "We can do the same thing to you."
What we can't afford anymore is the rampant deficit spending at all levels of government. Period.
Yes cut defense. Declare victory and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring the troops home from Europe and Asia. We have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and can no longer afford to have troops stationed all over the world.
South Korea has more people, money, and industrial capacity than North Korea. Why is it our responsibility to spend so many billions keeping them safe?
China is a real threat to countries in their orbit. But don't their neighbors have some capacity to contain them? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India...are these nations children that cannot work together but need Daddy America to reach into his wallet and take care of them?
Ukraine? Georgia? Yeah, well...sorry fellas. But some of us are lucky and some of us ain't. The rest of Europe, at least, ought to be able to take care of themselves.
