The dangers of further Defense cuts 

In a classic case of closing the barn door after the horses have bolted, newly appointed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and retiring Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen held a joint news conference Thursday in which they decried the impending cuts to the defense budget made likely by the debt ceiling deal.

In particular, they complained that, if the still-to-be-appointed joint committee of House and Senate members is unable to reach an agreement on how to trim $1.5 trillion more over the next decade from the federal budget, or if Congress as a whole refuses to pass the committee’s recommendations, the automatic $500 billion to $600 billion in defense cuts that could be mandated by the debt agreement would be “disastrous” and “unacceptable.”

Indeed, for just fiscal year 2013 alone, the automatic cuts could result in defense spending being slashed by approximately $100 billion from the administration’s own projected figure in last winter’s budget submission — a cut of nearly 20 percent.

Of course, one reason these additional cuts would be disastrous is that the administration — along with members of Congress — has already accepted as a done deal the agreement’s initial cut to “security” spending that will likely reduce defense accounts by some $25 billion to $30 billion for next year and $330 billion to $350 billion over the next 10.



Coming on the heels of $400 billion already being cut from defense by the administration in its first two years, the Pentagon is looking at the prospect of trying to maintain a defense capability second to none — with global responsibilities and new threats on the horizon (Iran, China) — shorn of $1.3 trillion over the next decade that it expected to have just three years ago. It is simply not the case that defense has not been “on the table” when it comes to deficit reduction efforts. Indeed, military budgets have been on the table since the 1990s’ “peace dividend.”

Moreover, these cuts come at the worst time. The American military has been pushed hard for a decade. As the recent hearings on readiness before the House Armed Services Committee showed, this is a military that is slipping — and in some cases has already slipped — into a state that leaves it unprepared for any new major contingency.

Nor is this news. Just one year ago, the bipartisan panel Congress created to review the Pentagon’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review — headed by former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Defense Secretary William Perry — concluded that “there is a significant and growing gap between the ‘force structure’ of the military — its size and its inventory of equipment — and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future.” Instead of cutting defense, there exists an “urgent necessity of recapitalizing and modernizing the weapons and equipment inventory of all the services.”

While the defense budget has grown substantially over the past decade, most of that increase has gone to fighting two wars (wars that Congress authorized by large margins), paying for the men and women who are at war and maintaining the aging equipment they use.


To meet the hundreds of billions in reductions set by the debt agreement, the only real alternative will be to cut the size of the active-duty force, strip it of some capabilities, and cancel or greatly reduce the procurement of new platforms and weapons systems. The result will be a military that is smaller and less capable of meeting present and rising dangers.


This article is adapted from The Weekly Standard.

About The Author

Gary Schmitt

Pin It
Favorite

More by Gary Schmitt

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation