January 24, 2007
The stakes in the "long war" against the forces of Islamic
fascism are high -- nothing less than the survival of the free
world. Congress and the President must ensure that our military
receives the resources it needs to prevail. There's simply no
Unfortunately, the recent trend with respect to our military budget suggests that we are dangerously close to revisiting the dark days of the 1990s, when we allowed our armed forces to "hollow out" and render us vulnerable to attack.
First, let's briefly review what happened when the Cold War ended.
After the fall of communism, Congress and the Clinton Administration determined that we could scale back military spending and still protect America's vital security interests. This gave rise to the so-called "peace dividend," the flood of money saved by slashing the defense budget.
During the decade between 1990 and 1999, defense spending decreased in real terms each year. However, history had not (as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said even at the time) ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. It had just been frozen by the Cold War. In the '90s it began, he noted, "thawing out with a vengeance."
Regional conflicts erupted across the globe, prompting Clinton to send U.S. forces to hot spots more frequently than his predecessors -- to the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, all of these military deployments and "peacekeeping" operations increased spending on operations and maintenance -- even as lawmakers craving that "peace dividend" shrank the overall defense budget. Something had to give. In the words of former Sen. Jim Talent (R.-Mo.), the preferred solution was "a decade-long procurement holiday."
Talent offered a vivid depiction of how the hollow military took form in a Senate floor speech:
The hollowing-out process led to a smaller Navy and Air Force.
At 283 ships, our current naval strength falls considerably short
of the Pentagon's desired 375-ship fleet. And since we're only
adding 5.6 new ships per year while retiring older vessels, the
fleet will eventually bottom out at 170 ships.
Lawmakers faced with the difficult choice of whether to spend precious defense dollars on weapons or personnel costs often choose the latter. In 1985, there was rough parity between what the Pentagon calls the "operation and support" portion of the budget (military personnel costs plus operations and maintenance) and spending on "modernization" (research and development plus the procurement of new weapons).
Over the last two decades, however, that parity has disappeared. We now spend more than twice the amount on operation and support (health care, subsidized food and housing, child care for dependents, and education benefits for GIs) as we do on modernization.
Talent sums up the Pentagon's budgetary conundrum as follows:
"Most of the [Pentagon's] budget is basically committed. You cannot short operations and maintenance…[or]… readiness. You must pay your people. You must provide the benefits you have committed to provide. That means any budget cuts must come almost entirely out of exactly the platforms, the ships and planes, and tanks and vehicles…that our men and women need to… defend us."
Indeed, our European allies have traveled even further along
this road. Last year, the 24 member states of the European Defense
Agency reported spending an average of only 1.8% of their GDPs on
defense, less than half of what we spend. And they devoted much
less (only 18% of their defense budgets) to modernization. Instead
they spent more on generous benefit packages for their servicemen
and women. Little wonder that a spokesman for the Belgium defense
ministry acknowledged shortly before the 2003 liberation of Iraq
that: "I'm not sure that the mission of the Belgium military is to
As bleak as the picture may look today, the coming fiscal crunch brought on by the retirements of 78 million Baby Boomers promises to make the situation much worse. (For a more in-depth discussion of the challenges posed by the looming Boomer retirements, see the companion piece, "Recasting Entitlements and Healthcare Market.")
My colleague Baker Spring points out that since 1970 the historical ratio between spending on defense and on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has flipped. In 1970, military spending as a percentage of GDP consumed more than twice the proportion of GDP consumed by the Big Three entitlements (8.1% compared to 3.9%). Today, defense spending has fallen to 3.9% of GDP while entitlement spending has more than doubled, consuming 8.3% of GDP. By 2030, these major entitlements will absorb roughly 85% of all federal revenues.
The Boomer retirements will place enormous pressure on national security spending, as lawmakers face the political Hobson's choice of funding popular welfare-style giveaways or the military. Choosing butter over guns, Spring warns us, could "jeopardize our nation's ability to wage war over the long term. Entitlement reform," he concludes, "is a national security issue."
To prevent the return to a "hollow military," there are several steps Congress should take, including:
Commit to spend at least 4% of GDP on our national security. By any historical standard, this is a modest level. Yet it's sufficient to provide an adequate military and not unduly burden the economy. Throughout the decades-long Cold War, for example, defense budgets averaged almost 7.5% of GDP.
Congress should fund war-fighting costs related to the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through supplemental appropriations. Core service functions, including crucial research and development, weapons procurement and manpower costs, should be funded through the regular budget.
Make national security spending more efficient. In particular, Congress should end the practice of earmarking Defense Department appropriations. Almost 40% of research and development dollars, for example, are earmarked to be spent in the districts and states of particular congressional members.
Congress should allocate a greater proportion of the defense budget to modernization, especially procurement. With China poised to become a heavily-armed hegemonic power in the Pacific and rogue states like North Korea and Iran prone to destabilizing and possibly destructive behavior, this is no time to allow our naval and airborne capabilities to decline.
Provide adequate funding for missile defense. A fairly modest investment would allow us to accelerate testing and improve the operational capability of our current ground-based missile defenses. Lawmakers should also insist that the military work to develop space-based platforms.
Michael Franc who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations.
First appeared in Human Events