Introduction
Annual military spending has risen more than 70 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 2001. With the drive to reduce the deficit, the current $700 billion Pentagon budget is considered by budget cutters to be a good place to find savings.
Which areas of the Pentagon budget should Leon Panetta,the next defense secretary, target for savings? What kinds of spending could most easily be cut back? How big a peace dividend might be expected from withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Read the Discussion »Debaters
Six Ways to Save
Updated May 9, 2011, 11:20 AM
Gordon Adams is professor of international relations at American University’s School of International Service and a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center. From 1993-97, he was the senior White House official for national security budgets.
A defense build-down is upon us and it provides a welcome opportunity to discipline the Pentagon. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman made the point: “The budget has basically doubled in the last decade. And my own experience here is that in doubling, we’ve lost our ability to prioritize, to make hard decisions, to do tough analysis, to make trades.”
Leon Panetta, who the new defense secretary, will need all his budgetary knowledge and negotiating skills to manage this build-down, our fourth since the end of the Korean War. We will not only reap the fiscal benefit of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we can lower the current 10-year defense plan by 15 percent, contributing a trillion dollars to deficit reduction and leaving in place a globally operating, dominant military capability.
How should Panetta do it? First, set priorities among defense missions, something the current Pentagon leadership has not done. Put on the front burner the question of whether the U.S. military should continue to circumnavigate the globe fighting insurgents and building nations in countries that don’t particularly want to be experiments for our preconceptions about proper governance.
Second, lower the size of the ground force to match, removing the 92,000 excess forces added over the past 10 years and reduce our ground presence in Europe and Asia.
Third, we have weapons programs, whose costs are growing, whose performance fall short of expectations, and which may not be urgently needed, like the F-35 fighter and the Virginia class submarine. They should be scaled back or terminated. And take a hard look at the next generation of nuclear programs — a new long-range bomber, a full replacement of ballistic missile submarines, and new designs for nuclear warheads — as we seek to curb global nuclear forces.
Fourth, shrink the defense "infrastructure" -- the offices and administration at the D.O.D. -- that consumes more than 40 percent of the defense budget. Beyond Secretary Robert Gates's “efficiencies,” uniformed personnel in the “back office” should be significantly reduced, and not replaced with civilians or contractors.
Fifth, tackle the intelligence spending “bubble.” Intelligence budgets have also grown, maybe doubled over the past 10 years. Efficiencies can be found, streamlining agency programs and consolidating administrative work.
And finally, the third rail — military compensation, health care, and retirement. The pay and retirement systems make management of the military force and more focused retention planning difficult. The costs of the military health care system are out of control.
There is a clear path to a disciplined defense budget and a well-managed build-down. It will not gut the military, but will leave a leaner, more focused force in place, while helping solve our nation’s fiscal crisis.
86 Readers' Comments
Post a comment »US Navy personnel used government credit cards to hire prostitutes at brothels, buy jewelry, gamble and attend New York Yankees and Los Angeles Lakers games in fraudulent purchases exceeding $470,000, congressional investigators have found last year.
Get the force structure back to 2000 levels.
Reduce shipbuilding. We have the only real “blue water” navy, the only navy with a credible air craft carrier forces, the only navy/military with robust worldwide logistics capacity. We don’t need to upgrade.
Keep the R&D base in air force technology warm. This won’t be efficient, but it is an important investment.
Keep substantial ground forces equipment prepositioned overseas, but rotate the materiel, bringing the maintenance of that hardware to the US.
Keep the Army training (and doctrine) base warm, but shrink it from current levels.
Reduce the huge number of contractors – develop and keep needed expertise in-house to provide the base for future expansion if/when needed.
Ann Romneys - near as I can find, the credit card abuse took place in 2001-02 and totaled about 200K. Those caught in the fraud had their pay docked. And of course none of this has anything to do with the military budget. Your cheap shot is not appreciated.
Let us not talk military cuts without acknowledging that the military is a huge government jobs program. When a few thousand jobs one way or the other can sway markets and raise or lower politicians' approval ratings, the notion of "bringing the troops home" and "slashing" military spending is fraught with unintended consequences. Does anyone think that if we stop spending $150 Billion in Afghanistan that the stateside companies that make the helos and the drones and all the myriad supplies and materiel that are currently gobbled up in that conflict are going to start manufacturing solar panels overnight? That those wonderful troops are going to come home to jobs? Obviously, we need to change our priorities, spend our hard-earned money more wisely than by throwing it at a bloated, spoiled military establishment. But we also need to be aware that doing so will cause social and economic dislocations that could be with us for quite some time.
Get rid of costly mercenaries & contractors and do the fighting and logistics in-house.
Get rid of weapons systems that the military doesn't want or need but are favorites of the politicians.
Introduce alternative energy to every possible aspect of military ops. The rising costs of fuel will make it hard to fight the next war. There's no reason why every base can't be energy independent and off the grid in 4 years. Of course the equipoment must be manufacured in the USA. It's a matter of national security.
What do unneeded weapons programs, civilian contractors 10x the cost of uniformed personnel and a foreign policy of preemption have in common? They are all the result of the looting within the pentagons budget by the well connected money interests of K Street.
If we simply place a moratorium on invading other countries for a few years, Panetta can call himself a genius for his fiscal prowess.
Our policy of providing free military protection and assistance to countries such as Korea and Germany who easily have the abiltiy to pay for their own military needs is outdated. It's a relic of the cold war world. We live in a very different international environment now, so this outdated policy would be the most obvious place to cut spending. We should focus our miltary spending on current needs.
I think that the first line to saving huge expenditures is to end the military roles in Japan and Germany.
We are STILL in a WWII posture in these allied nations. As for weapons procurement, the lobbyist seem to control the action. Biggest example is for sure the Osprey project which has been pushed along for 20 years and never at any point came close to its intended role. Military weapons has got to be based on need and true justification, never should any hardware purchase be based upon the "jobs" factor.
While none of the contributions specifically mentions a military budget post OBL, Mr. Gordon Adams addresses the intelligence bubble and forward deployed forces in Europe. Unfortunately, recent successes will only seem to justify the large intelligence expense. However, we must look at this objectively and really decide what intelligence assets are truly doing the great work.
I read all of these with a lot of interest, amazement and some anger. We do need to cut out waste and I know that waste occurs. I spent time in the USAF as a nurse and am a widow of an enlisted retiree. I do receive the SBP which we contibuted to. The first thing that we should remember is that the Pentagon does not control its mission. That is controlled by civilians. I have yet heard any general announce that he is sending troops to any country; that comes from whoever is President. Congress also has a say and you see what happens if a base is closed in their district. We use the military to cut our unemployment rate; we use the military to take care of civilian contractors who have a powerful lobby and you can bet they are not dining with the troops - they wine and dine politicians. We use our military for any presence we want to make outside of our borders. Benefits - our benefits, including salaries depend on Congress. Do you not think they might feel some guilt cutting those as they send them in harm's way? After all, they do not cut their own benefits and believe you me they are much greater than mine. I do appreciate what I get and would serve again but my husband fought in 3 wars and every little police action that came up; how do you compensate for that? We need to look at every government agency and cut waste. Spending habits are hard to change. Just a thought but a flat tax could eliminate most of the IRS and would that not save money?
How naive, Professor Adams - You point the finger at the Pentagon, but forget it is Congress, not the military, that sets priorities for our military. You wrote "Put on the front burner the question of whether the U.S. military should continue to circumnavigate the globe fighting insurgents and building nations in countries that don’t particularly want to be experiments for our preconceptions about proper governance." Since when is the military/Pentagon empowered to make these decisions? Those powers are reserved for the President and Congress. I would expect a "professor" to have a better understanding of American governance.
I am hoping that we can get a balanced enough congress to avoid massive knee-jerk "fixes" to the DOD problems which result in more breakage to our fragile economic recovery. Leon Panetta has a lot of experience in several areas of government; let's hope he can convince congress to work for the good of the country (for once). China is waiting for us to repeat the USSR's mistake.
No mention of the role of Congress? Weird.
"The costs of the military health care system are out of control." That's what war does. It kills and maims soldiers. The untold tragedy of our perpetual war is the tens of thousands of crippled soldiers.
The real problem is one of philosophy. If we truly believe the USA is the policeman of the world, then we probably aren't spending enough. If we simply need to defend our own nation, then we could cut waaaaaaaaaaaaay back. As long as our leaders believe in the former philsophy we are doomed. I suggest we elect some folks who believe otherwise.
The largest opponents of military cutbacks are the members of Congress from (potentially) effected areas. We need to become even smaller than 2000 force levels (and expenditures.)
We do not have military to fight wars, we create wars on wrong premises to maintain and expand military.
The most obvious defense cut would be to begin the process of reducing size the active army: we aren't facing 20,000 Soviet tanks across the Fukda Gap in Germany anymore and there is no reason for maintaining a massive ground force. Placing most of the 449,000 soldiers into the active reserve where they can be trained regularly gives the country the same defense benefit as we currently have but at far reduced expense. We would necessarily have to maintain a cadre of active army leaders - say 40,000 or so - to continue the research and development of new systems and to evolve the force along with changes in the world situation. Immediate needs for short-of-war force around the world could be easily handled by SOCOM or the Marines.
Obviously, the other services need to be trimmed as well, with a concentration on "battle labs" to keep the concepts and the techniques of the armed forces ahead of the rest of our potential adversaries. Since we are a sea power, refining the mix of ship types to match the emerging threats from around the world - such as adversary missile subs and aircraft carriers - continue to be important.
So if you really want to reduce our defense budget of $140 Billion per year of excess fat, cadre the army.
To jimmy2x, while Ann Romney's comments may be narrow in their content, they ARE pertinent to the issue in that most large organizations have plenty of "waste, fraud, and abuse" that can and should be rooted out. The bigger picture, of course, is that our military budget is almost equal to the combined military budgets of the world and it should not be difficult to find areas where we can make significant reductions. Given the strength of the "military-industrial complex" lobbying, this is unlikely to happen unless the majority of our citizens understand that it is possible to have a strong defense without spending nearly so much money AND make their voices heard.
A military as large as the rest of the world combined. Americans are following their obsession with war right down the still warm trail of the failed solviet empire. In the end, it will be the defense lobby and the loss of American character that will stampede the American bison off its cliff. The worldwide competitors have only to sit back and wait for America to chew off its own leg. And they won't have long to wait. You can tinker with budgets but the K street -defense of defense- runs as deep as any problem America faces. Hell, it would be downright un-American NOT to go off this cliff.
A few points need to inform this debate.
Starting with the fact that the national "security" budget far exceeds the $700 billion allocated to the Pentagon's budget--pushing the real number somewhere north of $1.2 trillion.
And ending with the fact that a good deal of that spending is dedicated to defending a global empire that is rarely discussed and largely unrecognized as a costly reality by the American people.
We spend more on defense than any other nation on earth
In fact, we spend more on defense that every other nation on earth--combined.
And the hundreds of billions we pour into the military--in the name of national security--comes at a terrible cost to other--equally important areas of national security--like energy, education and health care.
A military as large as the rest of the world combined. Americans are following their obsession with war right down the still warm trail of the failed solviet empire. In the end, it will be the defense lobby and the loss of American character that will stampede the American bison off its cliff. The worldwide competitors have only to sit back and wait for America to chew off its own leg. And they won't have long to wait. You can tinker with budgets but the K street -defense of defense- runs as deep as any problem America faces. Hell, it would be downright un-American NOT to go off this cliff.
Recommend
Social Safety Net at Risk
Updated May 9, 2011, 12:35 PM
Jennifer Mittelstadt is an associate professor of history at Rutgers.
The United States has reduced military manpower before. In the 1970s and 1990s the debates surrounding force reductions focused almost exclusively on how they would affect strategy and budget. Today legislators are considering another draw-down.
As in the past, policy makers are concerned chiefly with questions of military readiness and the cost savings. Legislators are again failing to address one of the most pressing
consequences of a drawdown: the threat to the social welfare of military personnel and their families.
consequences of a drawdown: the threat to the social welfare of military personnel and their families.
Since 1973, when the military abandoned the draft and shifted to an all-volunteer force, it has dramatically expanded its social welfare capabilities. A vast array of benefits and services have helped the military recruit and retain personnel. They have also been crucial for winning their families’ commitment to military life. The benefits have provided unprecedented and comprehensive social and economic security to the nearly 10 million volunteers since 1973 and their tens of millions of family members.
There is a risk that reducing force size will send military personnel and their families into a civilian world where the safety net has been torn apart by spending cuts, reduced eligibility and reduced coverage. The current recession promises still deeper cuts in social programs.
For the past nine years, military personnel and their famlies have suffered exceptional strain caused by two wars and repeated deployments. Despite its vast social supports, the military has proved unable or unwilling to solve some of the toughest mental and physical health problems of soldiers and families.
Downsizing the force will reduce their access to much-needed assistance and transfer the problems and costs of their social welfare needs to insufficient, already diminished and over-burdened civilian programs. Legislators ought to be alerted to the human side of the military draw-down and the broad implications it would have for the entire American social welfare system.
20 Readers' Comments
Post a comment »An absolutely essential point. Personnel costs (and health care) are the easiest targets in budget battles, but changing the terms of enlistment is, in itself, an egregious violation of contract, not to mention enormously disrespectful. Military families are patriotic, but they also consider the terms of enlistment and re-enlistment carefully, as my Navy-wife mother made crystal clear to us, the children of a thirty-year veteran of three wars (WW II, Korea, & Vietnam).
Recommend Recommended by 6 ReadersReport as inappropriate
We are not unlike the Soviet Union at its own dismemberment when the military was used as just another employer. If we brought home these mostly young people, sent them to real colleges, and trained them for civilian occupations we might reap a huge benefit and get them started right, too. Let's exchange rifles and bombs for the tools and processes of real industry.
Recommend Recommended by 9 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Some good points--I'm a military wife--but to in one breath say the military isn't doing a good job in caring for our mental and physical issues and then in the next say that we'd be harmed by leaving that flawed system seems a contradiction. We've been cared for very well by the system. I just wish they'd allow us to pay for SOME of the services, perhaps by rank or income.
Recommend Recommended by 6 ReadersReport as inappropriate
So you want the military as some kind of welfare? Unbelieveable!
Recommend Recommended by 8 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Seriously? When I get a job the employer has no obligation to support me after I quit, get fired,or am no longer needed. Remember, being in the military is VOLUNTARY. It's a job.
Recommend Recommended by 10 ReadersReport as inappropriate
@ Rick. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that your employer doesn't routinely ask you to do things that induce depression or PTSD in at least 15% of his employees, and death in significant percentages (1% in 10 months in my battalion during my 2004 deployment) and a lifelong urge to cry when reminded of your now long gone job in certain ways. And that's not to speak of the smaller number of amputees. Over 30,000 of Americas warriors have returned so badly wounded physically they couldn't return to their jobs over the last decade.
Recommend Recommended by 9 ReadersReport as inappropriate
#5 - Wrong. There's a reason why it's called military "service". It is NOT a job. While your obligation theory holds true in the civilian workforce, it has no relation to the military, which you quite obviously do not understand. Benefits such as the GI Bill, retirement after service of 20 or more years, medical/dental, are all designed to do one thing - convince people to join and stay. Some benefits are designed for younger folks who will do their time and get out, and some are designed for the people who will make it a career, adding the required stability, experience, and depth to our armed forces so that they can be the best in the world.
If someone does not serve to 20 years there is no retirement. If someone is discharged with anything other than an Honorable discharge, their benefits are either severely reduced or eliminated entirely. So before you start complaining about what the military members get, you might want to learn something about it.
If someone does not serve to 20 years there is no retirement. If someone is discharged with anything other than an Honorable discharge, their benefits are either severely reduced or eliminated entirely. So before you start complaining about what the military members get, you might want to learn something about it.
Recommend Recommended by 5 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Before I suggest delaying payment of military retirement benefits, I ask: when does a retired military person currently get to start collecting his retirement benefits?
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Here's the strange thing about this country: If a political leader in the United States proposes hiring unemployed people to build bridges and schools and high-speed rail, teach children, or lend a hand in hospitals, he will be invariably denounced as a socialist. If, on the other hand, a political leader proposes hiring unemployed people to go to some other country and blow things to smithereens or maybe just standing around holding an M-16, that's perfectly ok.
If you want to know why many people in other countries hate the US, that's why. According to our discretionary federal budget, we consider destruction and killing to be more important than education, infrastructure, economic well-being, or health.
Ms Mittelstadt's point is absolutely correct, but it's a shame that this is so.
If you want to know why many people in other countries hate the US, that's why. According to our discretionary federal budget, we consider destruction and killing to be more important than education, infrastructure, economic well-being, or health.
Ms Mittelstadt's point is absolutely correct, but it's a shame that this is so.
Recommend Recommended by 13 ReadersReport as inappropriate
I completely agree with your concerns. But even if the returning servicemen and women were given college educations, what sort of jobs will be available for them? We have a record number of unemployed people here.
Recommend Recommended by 3 ReadersReport as inappropriate
I really think our government needs to reinstate the draft when they decide to go to war. Someone volunteering to defend our country deserves to be cared for if they are injured. Fireman and Policeman are volunteers for their jobs also, in that they weren't drafted. They deserve to be cared for if they are disabled. How about Workman's Compensation? Businesses pay into that fund so that if people are injured on their jobs they get taken care of. Maybe the war profiteers should create a fund to help the veterans. After all, they make their fortunes on war.
Recommend Recommended by 1 ReaderReport as inappropriate
I don't entirely agree with Prof. Mittelstadt's points. In fact, the only points on this page I wholeheartedly agree with are #6's and #7's responses to anti-military posters like #5 and #9.
However, as a Rutgers history grad, I'd like to say this: go Scarlet Knights!!
However, as a Rutgers history grad, I'd like to say this: go Scarlet Knights!!
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
This comment has been removed. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
Recommend Recommended by ReadersReport as inappropriate
The only option is to bring back the draft. As Robert Reich has pointed out the military is the only jobs program that the US really has. If you add in the hiring of contractors etc. I suspect the military and paramilitary activities would make up a large part of the economy.
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Clearly the majority of the American population has no idea about the military and military familes, and I seriously doubt that many people really care. If you had any idea what military people go through while you live in one of the safest and most spoiled societies in world history, you would never support any government spending cuts aimed at military families. Welfare? Please! Everything military familes get is earned many times over. This conversation itself disgusts me and I will puke to see slimy politicians try to to justify firing military personnel and cutting their benefits.
Recommend Recommended by 3 ReadersReport as inappropriate
"A draw-down will affect the military's role in providing social and economic security to a vulnerable population." No kidding... Could we have some actual data please?
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
"Downsizing the force will reduce their access to much-needed assistance and transfer the problems and costs of their social welfare needs to insufficient, already diminished and over-burdened civilian programs. Legislators ought to be alerted to the human side of the military draw-down and the broad implications it would have for the entire American social welfare system."
Maybe not spending most the money collected on the military would allow funding of government programs to create jobs and help the public. Programs like long-term unemployment insurance that pays the bills, national healthcare. The rest of the money could come from the aristocracy of wealthy and corporations the US military represents, as a "force for good," overseas.
Maybe not spending most the money collected on the military would allow funding of government programs to create jobs and help the public. Programs like long-term unemployment insurance that pays the bills, national healthcare. The rest of the money could come from the aristocracy of wealthy and corporations the US military represents, as a "force for good," overseas.
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
I VOLUNTEER on the board of an educatio foundation. people VOLUNTEER their time to read to disabled vets or poor children. VOLUNTEERS showed up in droves to help the victims of the Alabama tornadoes.
Those sho join the military are NOT volunteers: they willingly accepted a job, after reviewing the benefits and financial rewards. they made a choice to have this as their career.
This is a necessary distinction. That said, we must never reneg on any promises made to the members of our military, either during or after thier career ends, especially to those maimed in these ridiculous wars.
Those sho join the military are NOT volunteers: they willingly accepted a job, after reviewing the benefits and financial rewards. they made a choice to have this as their career.
This is a necessary distinction. That said, we must never reneg on any promises made to the members of our military, either during or after thier career ends, especially to those maimed in these ridiculous wars.
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
A key point for an all volunteer force. The author has an understanding of the "other" Military that is a driving force behind the front line Airmen, Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers...their families.
Recommend Recommended by 0 ReadersReport as inappropriate
I would not even consider the US military to be a true 'volunteer' force. I am sure that the great social safety net and college tuition money the military provides entices many young men and women to join who otherwise would have been buried in student loans or would not have access to health care. It is a shame that the civilian programs are so insufficient and that the only way for some people to have health care or get an education is by joining the bloated, expensive military and putting their lives in danger. It seems to me, for a lot of people, joining the military is not a choice, it is the only option.
Recommend Recommended by 2 ReadersReport as inappropriate
Post a comment »
Suggest a correction to this blog post »Share your thoughts
No comments:
Post a Comment