Americans Ought to Be Getting More Bang for the Defense Dollar Buck
A consensus has quickly emerged that the Pentagon's eagerly anticipated Quadrennial Defense Review isn't the exercise in hard choices most had expected.
Instead, Pentagon brass want some new weapons, some anachronistic ones -- all expensive. They want robust global deployment of military capacity and want to be able to meet all challenges, from assymetric threats to major peer challenges, in all theatres and regions, with allies when it can be worked out -- but not dependent on them.
Despite a $440 billiion budget, with another $120 billion for the year's expenses in Iraq, Americans don't feel secure -- and most at home and abroad have a "sense" that American military and financial capacities are stretched to the limit.
Why is it that American tax dollars are pumping up Pentagon resources but that "security deliverables" seem to be declining?
Former National Security Council staffer and Hoover Institution Fellow Kori Schake has much of the answer in an important New York Times op-ed today, "Jurassic Pork".
In the piece, she writes:
The Defense Department's recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review, which had been billed as an outline for transforming post-9/11 military budgets, supports spending programs that look almost exactly like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's blueprint from August 2001, minus cuts to the size of the Army.
When President Bush came into office, he had a bold agenda for reform that would use technology and innovation to keep our forces compact and out of harm's way by using precision weapons that allowed them to move faster than an enemy's ability to react. The president promised to accept risk where we are strongest and to make investments in other areas like better pay and benefits to service members, spending $20 billion more on research and development and committing 20 percent of procurement to "leap-ahead" technology.
Sadly, the administration has fallen short on some of these promises. The Pentagon has not replaced existing programs or skipped a generation of technology. Mr. Rumsfeld has cancelled only two major programs: the Crusader self-propelled artillery and the Comanche helicopter. He has kept the F-22 fighter aircraft, which is designed to combat threats that no longer exist, and is proceeding with a self-propelled cannon system, a direct replacement to the Crusader.
And the Pentagon has not allocated anywhere near 20 percent of the procurement budget for new programs. The three newest programs, two of which were under way before 2001, are unmanned aerial vehicles, high-speed sealift and the Future Combat System, a network of 18 weapons and vehicles for about 45,000 soldiers. The 2007 fiscal year budget provides less than $5 billion for these programs.
Mr. Rumsfeld disparages his opponents as industrial age dinosaurs. Yet this is precisely the approach of this latest defense budget: it continues programs and practices that have been made obsolete by technology, innovation and field experience.
The QDR is a missed opportunity to get serious about a vision of security and opportunity decades ahead -- in which America and allies shape global behaviors and plan for 21st century contingencies that get us out of the Cold War anachronisms in Pentagon budgets.
Go see Eugene Jarecki's film Why We Fight. He has the movie version of this op-ed.
Steve
Isn't Rumsfeld's ideas really Andrew Marshall and other thinkers in the Pentagon who want to make war safe in a post-nuclear era?
Is the American people ever brought into this sort of debate. It seems clear that the stealth bombers taking off from Arkansas flying nonstop to Afghanistan and dropping enormous ordinance and flying back suggests that Rumsfeld is half right. In wars with China or other large powers we can overmatch most enemies technologically.
The problem are the political wars in which we do not want unconditional surrender but to decapitate the head of the nation to liberate the "good people and win their "hearts and minds." This is going to require soldiers on the ground. How are we going to avoid this and shouldnt this be debated openly.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 12, 2006 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, I would say the problem is that we are planning on waging wars for the foreseeable future, as if there is never any other option. War should never be an option in a "foreign policy". War should be reserved for when we are attacked, or seriously threatened with attack. And, ridiculously obvious - war should always be against another government, never against a collection of people. War must never begin with no possibility of winning, and winning has to mean that our opponent signs a surrender document.
This administration cannot possibly be trusted to wage a war. They haven't the slightest understanding of what a war is, and how it differs from the apprehension, arrest and trial of a criminal. To call the "leaders" of this administration stupid is an insult to that group of people.
So, for the present, the best "defense" budget must always be the smallest one. Far better that our armed forces be stretched beyond their abilities to cope, than to have a major well equipped force just waiting to be squandered by this administration.
Thank you for the opportunity to get that off my chest!
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 12, 2006 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise that we must have overwhelming superiority over now and future enemies is insane.
We are suppose to leap forward over -- whom?
I think that we should have the ability of punitively whack whoever is militarily active agaist our interests. Say, if we really do not want China from taking over Taiwan, we should have the ability to, say, knock out good portion of their airforce and navy without them being able to do much about it. And we have such ability, and so overwhelmingly so that Chinese do not seriously try to compete militarily.
Apparently, we now have "first strike" capability, i.e. the capability to knock out the entire Russian and Chinese nuclear armament in one fell swoop (partially because Russian capabilities declined, but partially due to improvements in our weapons).
We can conduct several "shock and awe" campaigns in one year if we are so inclined.
What we do not have is the capability of occupying a medium size country against the will of the population. In Iraq we have a serious opposition from ca. 20% of the population and we would be in a sorry shape if these were 75% -- so we must thread gently with Shia fundamentalists, and think several times before attacking Iran.
I would conclude that we should conduct our foreign policy in such a way that the need for occupying middle size countries agaist the will of the population would not arise, and slash our defence budget by 50%. Should China, Iran or whoever engage in military build-up that would be menacing, we may reconsider.
February 12, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, Steve. But if you have any remaining power to edit the title, could you please remove the word "dollar" from the title? "Defense Dollar Buck" is a painfully redundant expression.
February 12, 2006 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy
Your point about this administration is sadly way too true.
The United States is not only the only power that can help keep order in the world but is, despite some belief to the contrary, the accepted hegemon in the world. That said we are likely to be engaged in military actions periodically.
We should not only have an open debate about this but recognize that Americans and our leaders have put forth to related beliefs. That countries that do bad things have bad leaders and good people. The purpose of war is limited, decapitating the leaders. It has been true from Korea to Iraq. Yet the wars are sold as if they are all out total war like WWI and WWII. This creates a massive disconnect between means, goals and expectation.
It is time for a big debate about all these issues and a shaping of foreign and military policy based on an honest appraisal of Americans role and needs.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 13, 2006 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the money going?
Well, there's always the "missile defense" boondoggle and we could ask the K Street gang and our favorite California GOP crooks who they gave all the defense dollars to ...
February 13, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that we need to re-learn that "Security" is an illusion.
The tighter one tries to hold it, the less one has of it.
The people whose profession it is to imagine all possible threats can imagine many, many more "threats" than it is possible - much less reasonable - to defend against. Even still, those who decide to pose a threat always have the advantage that offensive surprise connotes.
February 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strategic bombing, carpet bombing, you're still left with occupying what's left. And there's the problem. "Our whole military is based on the idea of overwhelming firepower put on targets. But that doesn't work in this (Iraq) type of conflict. We are fighting an enemy that has made himself untargetable." We lost Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon, again enemies that were untargetable. Keeping military planning and policies and budget allocations in the hands of individuals who do not understand, or refuse to face the realities of future wars and occupations is stupid and dangerous. I fear our active military brass have become sycophants to Rumsfeld's ego.
February 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would we really not want China to invade their province, Taiwan? How is it any of our business? In fact if we would just shut the Hell up about Taiwan that whole issue would be settled diplomatically, just as the Hong Kong issue was. Way back in the red-baiting times we settled the Taiwan issue as it stands today - we recognized that Taiwan was China, and insisted on that fiction for several years. Then, when it became politically palatable to appease mainland China, we agreed that mainland China was China and Taiwan was part of China. Frankly, I wouldn't be in favor of sacrificing one US military man or woman, or one hundred dollars in costs, to try to undo those agreements. And, I am quite certain that the UN will join me in my objections.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 13, 2006 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did we ever have Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon to lose? We attempted to help in Somalia, and weren't very successful. We attempted to help in Lebanon, and weren't at all successful. Whatever we were trying to do in Vietnam was also unsuccessful. But, we didn't lose those countries any more than we lost China.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 13, 2006 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have treaty commitments to protect the Taiwanese. I am unclear why you are so casual with other people's freedoms.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 13, 2006 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't checked the Terror Alert Level recently, Steve, link
Americans are supposed to be afraid. Very afraid. The Yellow Alert Level means there is a SIGNIFICANT risk of a terror attack. Bush and Co. and the MSM have tried very hard to scare Americans Bush has been doing his best to scare us with his wars, his endless GWOT, his search for WMD, and his wars to kill them there before they kill us here.
Pentagon bloated budget be damned, one would feel safer almost anywhere on earth than in America under George W.
February 13, 2006 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me clear this up then. We reneged on our treaty commitments to the residents of Taiwan when Nixon reached out to recognize mainland China as the real China. Part of that recognition was to vote to give the China vote in the UN to China, taking it from the Taiwan government. In doing that we explicitly agreed that Taiwan was just a province of China. And, just as no country can defend we Californians from the USA, no country can defend the Taiwanese from China.
In fact the whole issue of our "defending" the Taiwanese is pure politics, aimed at appeasing the right wing Republicans. Surely, no one is naive enough to think that our country is even capable of stopping China if they send in Chinese troops to Taiwan to put down a revolt. The only thing we could do is bomb China, probably the dumbest thing we could do, and it would have little effect on China's ability to control Taiwan.
The way we will handle the Taiwan issue is the way we handled the Hong Kong issue. Unfortunately, I am not at all confident that this administration understands the limitations on what we can do in Taiwan, so it is at least slightly possible that we really will some day threaten to bomb China over Taiwan.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 13, 2006 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink