Skip to main content

Hiding devils in the details: the Pentagon's new (new) (NEW!) American century budget

Amazingly enough I have yet to see any commentator actually grapple with what the Pentagon's new proposed budget actually means.

At the top, assuming that President Obama and SecDef Gates get what they want, there are going to be big cuts in major weapons systems: the F-22 [which should be known as the White Elephant fighter], a carrier group, several helicopter, the Future Combat Systems, and missile defense will all take major hits or be eliminated.

This, of course, has the neo-cons up in arms that Obama is soft on terror and intent on appeasing our enemies.

All of which misses the point.

Overall defense spending is not going to go down. So where's the money going?

Read carefully these three paragraphs indirectly quoting Gates at MSNBC (if I could find a direct quote I'd use it):

Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.


OK, this--not the cuts in the F-22 or the carrier group--is what's critical about the story.

Why? Because you have to think about what it really means.

We're ostensibly withdrawing from Iraq, right? So the war there supposedly has a sunset.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan we've just doubled down, but that would not call for an increase in troop strengths, even if the President gives the generals everything they want.

No, you only ask for the kinds of funding for troops, ammunition, special forces, predator drones if you plan to use them ... extensively.

This suggests that the administration and the Pentagon are contemplating a world in which more Afghanistans are on the table, and where conventional confrontation with the likes of Russia or China are increasingly off of it.

Part of that approach makes tremendous sense: our NATO allies need to take responsibility for defending their own continent; Japan needs to suck it up and deal with North Korea; and we seriously need to stop pretending that it is either (a) likely or (b) worthwhile for us to get drawn into some sort of China-invades-Taiwan scenario. It also makes it less likely for us to get drawn into scenarios in which we launch conventional invasions of other countries.

[Unfortunately, I don't actually think we'll make NATO and Japan carry their own weight, but I'd love to be proven wrong on that one.]

So what are we going to do with our just-as-expensive-but-configured-differently US Armed Forces?

Several kinds of mission/scenarios come to mind:

Light infantry/special forces type interventions in places like the Horn of Africa, northern Mexico, the Balkans, Ecuador....

Here's the thing: for several decades the point of having a massive conventional military establishment [larger in budget terms than the next highest-spending twenty-five nations combined] was deterrence.

The point of investing in building a military capable of extended interventions, unconventional warfare, and counter-insurgency is interventionism.

If you doubt, go here to read about the Pentagon being a little unguarded about its contingency plans, and here for a discussion of what candidate Obama was saying about interventionism.

My difficulty here is that we're pursuing a military built around a doctrine and scenarios, rather than a coherent foreign policy vision. When that happens, you have this tendency to build the kinds of policies you will pursue around the capacities you have.

Don Rumsfeld became infamous for saying something like You go to war with the army you have, which could be inverted into the situation that worries me: You sometimes tend to pick the wars you're going to fight because of the army you have.

I don't doubt that SecDef Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus, and General Odierno all share a common vision of what US foreign and military policy should be.

What makes me nervous is that I'm not sure that President Obama or Secretary Clinton have figured out precisely who's engineering this train.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba