Hampton Roads, VA - 11/21/2009
Broken Clouds60°Broken Clouds
Forecasts | Doppler Radar
Traffic Cameras & VDOT Alerts

Fiscal realities imperil Obama's vow to change military

Posted to: Military Politics


A rendering of the Navy's proposed DDG 1000 destroyer. (Courtesy of Lockheed Martin Corp.)



WASHINGTON

Is the candidate who promised "change we can believe in " about to deliver continuity at the Pentagon,

Even as he insists he'll honor pledges to end the war in Iraq, President-elect Barack Obama's decisions to retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates and install retired Gen. James Jones as his national security adviser suggest that military change will come slowly in the new administration.

That means the defense budget - now about $540 billion annually, not including war costs - will remain steady or grow slightly for a while, analysts have said. Obama will find ways to save money by winding down the Iraq war while continuing to implement expensive decisions by his predecessor and the Congress to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps, they predicted.

It's "almost certain" that defense spending will grow - though slowly - during the next four years, said Bernard Finel, a fellow at the American Security Project, in a discussion with defense reporters recently.

Seven years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq have so taxed American troops and equipment that the new president has little choice but to find the billions of dollars needed to maintain what's left and replace what's been lost, Finel said.

Obama might look to defense spending for part of the economic stimulus that he has promised for the nation's ailing economy, said former Sen. Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican. It's hard to see how the new administration can fix what's been worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus modernize the military for challenges elsewhere, without a $50 billion boost in spending on weapons and other equipment, Talent argued.

"One needs to be humble in trying to project the future of defense spending," cautioned Steven Kosiak, senior budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think tank.

Before 9/11, no one predicted a dramatic growth in defense spending, Kosiak noted.

Kosiak suggested that long-term pressures on the rest of the federal budget, principally from mushrooming costs for health care, will eventually force a flattening of or modest cuts in other programs, including defense.

That could mean slow progress, or cancellation, for some high-profile new weapons systems, including the Navy's already-imperiled DDG-1000 destroyer and Ford-class aircraft carrier, the Army's "future combat system," and the F-35 fighter being developed for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

The services "have already gotten lots of money" to replace equipment used up in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kosiak said, and the Pentagon has used part of the annual "supplemental" appropriations Congress provides for the war effort to cover costs not tied to the war, he said.

While the prospects for quick change at the Pentagon appear limited, some of the new president's advisers, and people who want to be his advisers, are pushing ambitious proposals for military change.

Once troops in the field are taken care of, "you have to put everything on the table," Rudy deLeon, a deputy defense secretary in the Clinton administration, argued in a paper published last month by the Center for American Progress, a think tank run by Obama transition chief John Podesta.

In another essay written as part of the center's "progressive blueprint" for the new president, Lawrence Korb, a defense official in the Reagan administration, urged that all American troops be pulled from Iraq by the end of 2009, far sooner than Obama has proposed.

As some U.S. forces come home and others are re deployed to deal with growing threats in Afghanistan, Iraqi leaders will be "on notice that they cannot count on us forever and must instead begin to make the hard political choices necessary to bring about political reconciliation," Korb argued. "If they do not make these compromises as we redeploy then it will be clear they are unable to make them at all."

Another group, the Project on National Security Reform, argued in a study published this summer that a completely new structure is needed to replace the current "national security system's antiquated, inadequate organization."

"The gap between the system's capacity and the demands being placed upon it is widening," the congressionally-mandated study argued.

The group proposed doubling spending on the State Department and foreign aid over the next five years and closer links between the military and the "soft power" nation-building efforts led by the diplomatic corps.

T hose endorsing the report include retired Adm. Dennis Blair, reportedly Obama's choice to be director of the nation's intelligence apparatus, and Michele Flournoy, a co-director of the president-elect's transition team.

Also on board are a smattering of prominent Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

A far more radical approach to Pentagon change is being pushed by a group of analysts assembled by the Straus Military Reform Project, a branch of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

Introducing "America's Defense Meltdown," a new Straus project book, retired Marine Lt. Col. John Sayen argues that today's U.S. military forces are "high-cost dinosaurs that are insufficiently lethal against most of the enemies we are likely to face."

Those forces, retired Air Force Col. Chet Richards added in another chapter, have been used to "solve problems that are inherently social, economic or political and therefore do not admit of military solutions." The new president must "explicitly restrict the use of our military forces to those problems that only military forces can solve and that the nation can rally to," Richards wrote.

The book's authors are a group of retired military officers and civilian defense officials who were prominent in the 1980s defense reform movement that exposed wasteful Pentagon spending on things such as toasters and toilet seats. They have been warning for years that the Pentagon is overinvesting in high-tech weapons that are ill-suited for unconventional wars such as the current struggles against Islamic terrorists.

Winslow Wheeler, who directs the Straus project, said Obama's decisions to hire Jones at the White House and keep Gates at the Pentagon, along with reports that ex-Navy Secretary Richard Danzig will be tapped as Gates' top deputy, are not encouraging signs.

"If we judge people by their track records, we can expect more of the current, long-term negative trends" - a military that continues to grow in cost as its equipment ages, inventories shrink and readiness erodes, Wheeler said.

Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com



ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Interesting. .

It is non-sense that the F35 is mentioned as that jet is 80% done, and is in testing phase. R&D (where you spend most of your money) is largely done. It's these futuristic ships like the one depicted that need to be shelved for the time being, as well as many new programs that aren't focused on repair and upgrading. The budget needs to go up, and cuts in other areas will be made like NASA.

Needed: oversight of procurement programs

What the defense department REALLY needs is serious oversight of procurement programs to make certain they aren't overwhelmed with needless cost overruns. Ships the Navy really needs such as more Freedom class type vessels should not be cut, but their construction costs need to be thoroughly examined and changed where necessary. Do I see anything like this coming from this administration? Not at this time. It looks like the same old group that has been in office in the Pentagon for the last 20 years, rubber stamping whatever the defense contractors bill out for and thus sticking it to the American taxpayer.

On a related note, the "strong on defense" republican misnomer..

... has been officially retired, for the Bush/Cheney admin and their congressional republican rubberstamping co-conspirators have weigh laid the military. They fueled radicalism via policies of torture, ignored the 911 kingpin maggots, and added 5 trillion to the natl debt. But like the other posters here, lets instead bash the Obama administration 2 months in advance of it taking office for things we expect them to do or for things we believe they wont get done.

Just a thought

No, the "Change" theme is not a lie.

I appreciate the fact that President-elect Obama is choosing his cabinet with known success and experience during an economic crisis. I believe we were in the same position with a new administration coming in in 1992. So at least on January 21, 2009, Obama can come out the gate running. Just like McCain always said, "This is not the time for "on-the-job" training."

Since I was in the military, I saw and felt what Clinton's budget cuts to us. It was devestating and extremely frustrating. However, on the civilian side, I understand that he was fiscally conservative and made created a budget for our country that would make a single mom with kids happy.

So be patient people, it is always darkest before the dawn. Just relax and ensure your personal house is in order. I am.

It took 8 years to get in this mess, so don't expect miracles, military or civilian wise, to happen overnight. I expect progress and we will have it. We may not see positive outcomes for years.

Most of them are pretty nieve about everything........

If people that elected Obama think that his change will happen in his first year, they are very nieve about politics

No Changes yet!!!!

I don't see any changes @ the White House. I do see the reinstallation of the Clinton Administration. That administration was the benefactor of the .com boom, & when it leveled off, or petered out, so did the economy. I don't see the end to that situation anytime soon. There is no quick fix here. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day & I suppose our economy won't recover in a day either. I'd like to see some more fresh faces w/fresh ideas, not just the same old retreads, both Democrat & Republicans.

We already know that was a lie

We already know the change thing was a lie based on the old school party line nominations. As far as military budget, expect exactly the same as the last time these people had the majority budget vote.

Anyone who thinks Obama has

Anyone who thinks Obama has any notions of reducing the deficit is kidding themselves. All of his spending cuts and tax increases are only to pay for more spending, primarily in social programs (and he isn't even saving enough to cover it all).

Don't worry, as we bankrupt our country even further it will be used as an excuse to control more and more of the means of production until we all depend on the gov't for the necessities of life.

Oh, and if you hurry now, you can get two fearless leader commemorative plates for the price of one, straight off the boat from China!

Outlook/look back

Cutting through the red tape and this long article, we know that President elect Obama has a hard road ahead. The question is, will Congress let him. It has been that way for decades. When one President is replaced, it takes years for his objective to take hold. Things do not happen overnight. If people that elected Obama think that his change will happen in his first year, they are very nieve about politics. Some policies that Clinton signed for are still getting off of the ground. All because of one thing, Political red tape. And who is at the end of it, Congress. They fight more over themselves than taking care of us. Then they take a vacation. The President does not get that privilage. Bush was in an elementry school when 9/11 happened. He went strait to work. What did congress do, take the day off because the Capital was locked down. President is a hard job, it is one for millions. Give it time and see how it rolls. If it dont, we only have four years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More Military Stories

More articles from: Military rss feed