The proposed Department of Defense budget authority for fiscal
year (FY) 2010 is $534 billion--$686 billion after factoring in the
costs for redeploying units from Iraq and increasing troop levels
in Afghanistan. Further, the budget blueprint drastically reduces
defense spending to just 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
in 2019, far below the current spending levels of approximately 4
percent.
What is essentially a flat budget topline for the military in
2010, however, is really a declining defense budget: The costs of
doing everything in the military--from paying people to buying new
equipment--greatly outpaces inflation every year.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Trent Franks
(R-AZ) have introduced legislation--Senate Joint Resolution 10
(S.J.Res. 10) and House Joint Resolution 23 (H.J.Res. 23)--that
would allocate the core defense budget toward maintaining today's
force structure with a special emphasis on developing and deploying
the next generation of weapons and equipment that U.S. forces will
need to fight effectively in the future.
Congress should support a final budget resolution that increases
defense by $27 billion in 2010 in order to meet the 4 percent
benchmark identified as the minimum funding level necessary to
train and equip America's military as advocated by Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
Inadequate Defense Budget Proposal for
2010
Reform is the buzzword of the day, but it is becoming overused
and undervalued while falsely raising expectations for potential
savings in the FY 2010 defense budget. Worse, "reform" is becoming
a euphemism for defense budget "cuts" to major weapons systems.
As a result of the 2010 defense budget shortfall, the White
House has directed the Pentagon to reduce the defense modernization
accounts by up to $5 billion. Ongoing Pentagon budget deliberation
reports indicate that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering
terminating production of the F-22 Raptor, cancelling the Air
Force's next-generation bomber, slashing missile defense programs,
eliminating an entire aircraft carrier and carrier wing, and
delaying or cancelling many vehicles in the Army's Future Combat
Systems. And that is only this year's budget.
Without a sound fiscal policy or National Security Strategy,
cutting the defense budget when nearly all domestic programs are
increasing in size is both arbitrary and unwise. If the defense
budget ultimately is reduced this year or even next, the logical
conclusion will remain that the defense budget cuts are based on
the need to find a billpayer for domestic priorities and
programs.
Smarter Defense Spending
Unanimous among Washington policymakers and defense officials is
the notion that the U.S. military is the best-trained and best-led
in the world. What assessments of America's military often
overlook, however, is that the bulk of platforms and weapons
systems that equip today's forces are decades old and in need of
replacement. Due to the funding decisions of the last 15 years, the
current U.S. military force is too small and too old relative to
the requirements of the National Military Strategy. Without at
least maintaining today's levels of procurement spending, the U.S.
will be unable to modernize its forces to the degree necessary to
preserve its security within the necessary margin of safety.
Because longer-term economic growth is a priority for a robust
defense budget, smarter defense spending is needed in Washington to
maintain the basic military building blocks that form the
foundation of strategic planning. The federal government should
operate within an environment of finite resources, a requirement to
which the defense budget is not immune. There is no blank check
that would allow defense officials to avoid prioritizing budget
needs. As responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, senior defense
officials and Members of Congress must acknowledge that reforming
the weapons acquisition process and military pay system are
required. However, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) highlighted in
a conference call this week, any potential savings realized as a
result of procurement reform should be reinvested within the
defense budget.
Maintaining Military Primacy
Current modernization plans are intended to replace equipment
and platforms that in many cases have exceeded their projected
operational lives. Robust investment in new, next-generation
technology is not about letting defense contractors profit but
rather what ultimately:
- Avoids conflict by deterring potential adversaries; and
- Saves lives on the battlefield with better armor, air
superiority, secure sea lines of communication, and every other
capability that allows the men and women in uniform to
prevail.
Ironically, while many critics of the defense budget rush to
cite the need for elimination of unnecessary "Cold War relics" or
systems, it is precisely these systems that maintain U.S. military
primacy. What is military primacy? There has not been a single
soldier or Marine who lost his life in combat due to
a threat from the air in over 56 years, for example. This is due to
one fact: air superiority. U.S. air dominance exists today thanks
to a force structure that combines both legacy and fifth-generation
fighter aircraft. As the legacy aircraft retire at ever increasing
rates, however, maintaining that superiority is not guaranteed.
Sufficient amounts of fifth-generation aircraft must be purchased
to keep this tremendous capability and technological edge for the
next four decades.
Other core American military capabilities that could be lost
unless they are proactively maintained--regardless of the political
party in power--include protecting and defending the U.S. and its
allies against attack, maritime control, space control,
counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, the ability to seize and
control territory against organized ground forces, projecting power
to distant regions, and information dominance throughout
cyberspace.
Amend the Pending Budget
Resolution
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration's budget blueprint has
the defense budget declining significantly by 2019 to a mere 3
percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the President projects that same year
the U.S. will be spending 12 percent of GDP paying down interest on
the national debt. The military cannot afford a "modernization
depression"--yet that is exactly what is coming. Congress should
amend the pending budget resolution to add $27 billion to the
defense budget in 2010 to adequately meet the military's basic
requirements.
Mackenzie
Eaglen is Senior Policy Analyst for National Security in the
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a
division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.