Congress has now passed a bipartisan debt-ceiling agreement that seems to please no one, and there is the usual who-won-who-lost parlor game that preoccupies the inside-the-Beltway crowd. But far more serious is the fact that one of the biggest potential losers in this deal is American national security.
Under President Obama, the Defense Department’s budget has already been reduced by some $430 billion. Now, thanks to this “compromise,” the security portfolios will be reduced by a further $350 billion in the first round of cuts.
Advertisement
Then, in the fine print of the debt-ceiling deal, a twelve-member bicameral “super committee” will recommend a second round of cuts, to be voted up or down by the House and Senate. Call this the “player to be named later.” Here’s the worst part: As an incentive for the honorables to take action before Christmas, failure to enact budget reductions will automatically “trigger” a fresh round of cuts totaling $1.2 trillion — with half of it coming from defense-related accounts.
In this scenario — hardly unlikely given the ongoing food fight on Capitol Hill — the Pentagon, which accounts for only one-third of annual federal outlays, would have to absorb half the reductions, with military pay exempt. This would translate into deep and devastating cuts to military muscle. Modernization of aging inventories of aircraft, ships, and armored vehicles, ballistic-missile defense, and overall readiness would all be seriously affected.
Army general Martin Dempsey, President Obama’s nominee to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified, during his confirmation hearings on July 26, that cutting $800 billion from the military in twelve years would be “extraordinarily difficult and very high risk.” It must be asked: Would cutting $600 billion in eight years — on top of the nearly $800 billion already or prospectively cut in Phase I of the new plan — be any less difficult or risky?
Offering up America’s national security on the altar of fiscal responsibility would be short-sighted and foolhardy. According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, by the end of this year, the U.S. Navy will be smaller than at any time since 1916. The Air Force has the smallest number of aircraft and bases since its founding in 1947. This sorry state of affairs has come about even as we are engaged in ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and waging a “war on terrorism” on a global scale.
History demonstrates that previous military drawdowns invited aggression by our enemies. After World War I, America drew down forces until the U.S. Army had fewer than 100,000 men in uniform. That weakness invited Nazi aggression in Europe and the imperial Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. The post-Vietnam drawdown invited the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and proxy wars for Communist domination from Central America to Angola. After America won the Cold War, some believed we had come to the “end of history,” and budget-cutters celebrated the so-called “peace dividend.” As a result, we ignored the toxic mixture of militant Islam and terror that ultimately led to 9/11.
Since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, conservatives have succeeded by adhering to a platform that rests firmly on three legs: smaller government, faith and family, and a strong national defense. These three legs do not merely represent a political coalition; they are three necessary components of a strong and secure America. The absence of any one of the three would diminish our national strength and increase our vulnerability to enemies, foreign and domestic.
The fiscal profligacy of President Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill may tempt Republicans in Congress to agree to deep — and, in General Dempsey’s words, “high risk” — defense cuts today in exchange for long-term reductions in entitlements down the road. This would be a mirage.
America’s defense is too important to become a political football in the budget battles. Rather, any cuts in defense spending should be the result of a careful, dispassionate assessment of the risks we and our allies face. A global risk assessment should inform a defense strategy that adequately manages those risks, and such a strategy should lead to a budget that can keep America safe.
Making portentous decisions on any other basis risks gravely weakening our defenses and demonstrating to foes and friends alike a lack of resolve that ensures we will face more of the former with fewer of the latter. As history has repeatedly shown, such weakness only serves to invite aggression. The mortal threats that result would certainly prove far costlier than the defenses that would have prevented them.
— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org) and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio.
When I used to listen to the Hugh Hewitt show Gaffney made regular appearances. If you listened to Gaffney we would be at war with at least a dozen countries including Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The guy is a war-monger.
I'm not being paid by anyone or the government. I am an American and a Veteran who can read history and understand its implications for us today. Hollowing out the military is something we are quite adept at.
Does anyone remember what happened to our military west of Midway Island in early 1942? They were sacrificed to the Japanese because we didn't have enough military assets to reinforce and supply them. They either died or were POWs. Does anyone know what happens to a military in the field that are below strength when facing a determined enemy? They die needlessly because we didn't provide adequate military assets to ensure victory. Does anyone remember Dunkirk?
Wake up people! You are doing the exact same thing that you have done before. Assuming that you can do the same thing with a different outcome is foolishness.
We fund our military adequately to defend ourselves or we suffer the same fate as France, the Netherlands, Belgium and all the others in WW II. You don't get your entitlement checks when the Chinese march into Washington. Capite?
So we need a fleet of stealth naval destroyers to fight truck bombers in Kabul, Mr Gaffney?
Or are you expecting us to go to war with China, our biggest trading partner...or the Russians who now just want to be rich capitalists who probably read the Wall Street Journal and watch Fox News?
"That weakness invited Nazi aggression in Europe and the imperial Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor."
The US could of had a million man army and it would of not mattered to Hitler for the simple reason America in the 1930s had no desire to get involved in European affairs after what happened at Versailles.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was instigated because FDR embargoed oil shipments to the Japanese and issued an ultimatum to the Japanese in November 1941 whose only realistic response on the part of the Japanese was Pearl Harbor. The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, put in harms way by FDR, was because it was a legitimate threat to the IJF with 9 battleships and 3 aircraft carriers.
In 2010 we accounted 44 % of the world total for military spending. China, our most likely future adversary, logged in at 7.3, good enough for second place. With our very economy at stake, the greatest component of our national security, You want to tell me, with a straight face, there is no room for defense spending cuts? How about those bases in Germany, for starters, the Second World War 's been over for 66 years already!
Michael---Tell that to your children when we lose Pacific markets because the Chinese military is unopposed in that region. They are building up military assets to move us out so that they can fill the vacuum.
What happens to those entitlement checks when we lose that market? Can we sustain our economy with that loss. Can we make up that loss in Europe, Africa, the Middle East? Where will we go to sell American goods?
What do you think will happen to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines when no one stands with them against the Chinese? Do you think they will oppose the adventurism of the Chinese Navy alone?
"What do you think will happen to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines when no one stands with them against the Chinese?"
How about those nations actually assuming more responsibility for their own defense.
Australia: 2.2% GPD on defense
Japan: 1% GPD (The US can give approval to lift this constitutional limit)
Indonesia: 0.9%
Philippines: 0.8%
New Zealand: 1.2%
If China starts to act like a bully the natural consequence would be these countries and you can throw in Vietnam into the mix would ally together to serve as a counterweight. Right now they just look to the US as their protector and free ride off our Treasury. The US can serve a role like Great Britain did in the late 17-18th centuries in making alliances with various Europe states to counterweight France.
Moreover, surface ships (including Chinese) are now sitting ducks.
BTW, one reason the (as usual budget busted) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was cancel was because the ships that launch them could be easily sunk while doing so.
Guys like Gaffney are paid a lot of money to shill for any weapons system no matter how expensive and how improbable it could be used effectively.
Suppose we "only" outspent the Chinese by 3 to 1 instead of the current 6 to 1. How long before the Chinese move us out and seize the entire asian market for themselves?
Can you tell me with a straight face that our military can sustain cuts of $900 billion? That is potentially what they face with the debt deal. When discussions centered around $400 billion even obama appointees considered that dangerous.
No, I never suggested that, the 900 billion is your figure. Cuts on the order of 200 to 300 billion should be in the realm of possibility , especially once we have extricated ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan.
You mean like Australia and New Zealand were able to stand alone against the Japanese in WW II? Dream on! They don't have an economy that could sustain a military equivalent to stand toe to toe against the might of the Chinese economy.
The cause of trillions of dollars of debt is spending. Stimulus spending that did not create jobs.
The waste of stimulus only helped politiicans and civilian government employees. The country should not pay for this. That money should be returned to the coffers to pay down the debt and interest.
There might be some agreement on cutting the military in places where the military is not needed. It is not needed in Japan and Germany. But, there are two wars and South Korea that needs to be protected. The military needs hardware that will fight the war.
Also, tax increases leads to more spending and no jobs. The debate goes on as far as Clinton against Reagan. The examination on that is: Reagan had a Democratic congress and Clinton had a Republican congress. The economy did not pick up until the Republican congress took over. The Republican congress prevented spending and lowered taxes in capital gains and other areas. Reagan lowered taxes from around 80 percent to 35 percent, but congress increased spending and had another tax increase in a different area. The tax decrease of the marginal rates created more jobs and more revenue coming in. If there are tax hikes there will be no revenue coming in and people will owe money when they can't pay. Thus, the prisons will start to overflow.
Despite the rhetoric, Obama has continually increased the military budget, SUBSTANTIALLY. On the surface it seems strange doesn't it? Why hasn't a dedicated anti-militarist slashed military spending? Don't all liberals want to weaken the military?
There has never been a hard leftist who didn't want to own and control a powerful military. If Obama wins in 2012, he will be very well positioned to do just that. He already has plenty of loyalists.
I'm not saying that there isn't waste in defense. I was in the Service. I'm just saying that when you set up spending cuts to disproportinately fall on the military then you establish a very dangerous precedent. Cut across the board with no exceptions. The 'Penny Plan' proposed by Sen. Connie Mack appears promising.
Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are not sacrosanct. Before 1935 and 1965 we existed and survived without them. The Department of Education, EPA, and the entire government should sacrifice before we leave our security in doubt.
Pay should be on the table. The myth that 19-year-old PVT's or 23-year-old LT's or 35-year-old SFC's are making less than their civilian couterparts is false, particularly when you factor in BAH. Moreover, the retirement system should be overhauled and modeled on the Reserve system: draw retirement pay after the age of 60.
Moreover, we need to take a long, hard look at our strategic priorities and draft a budget afterwards (not the other way around).
@Perplexed
It's not a 0/100% decision regarding the defense budgets of our allies: they don't have to stand alone, but we are no longer doing all of the heavy lifting ourselves. Shared sacrifice for a shared interest.
