SecDef Gates yesterday announced a reordering of U.S. defense priorities. While there will apparently be a slight overall increase in spending (approximately 2%), Gates is now prepared to slash key programs that affect the country’s ability to fight ‘big wars’ and defend against missile attack. In Gates’s opinion, we should focus our attention on lower intensity insurgency operations around the world. His entire statement, published by the Wall Street Journal, is worth a careful look.
I’m certainly not philosophically opposed to setting defense priorities, so long as those prorities are based on the state of the world as it exists. But is Gates seeing the same world I’m seeing? A few points.
First, we’re spending trillions (!) on ‘stimulus’ programs that seem to stimulate social services and not create or improve infrastructure. Yet, the total defense budget is only around $550 billion. Quite apart from considerations of national security, defense contractors employ millions of skilled employees at high wages. Union employees, come to think of it. Gates proposes to add a paltry $11 billion to this year’s budget, while cutting many programs. As a portion of GDP, defense spending is around 3.5%, which is historically low.
Second, the world is a very dangerous and unstable place just now – more so than usual. Economic instability usually begets political instability. Looking at China, Russia, Iran, and developments in our own hemisphere, is it not possible that we could be simultaneously fighting big wars as well as counterinsurgencies? I certainly think so. And if we can spend massively on mush (like the billions the Congress is prepared to spend on an expanded, uniformed civilian corps), can we not fund something that is the federal government’s direct – and primary – responsibility?
But to particulars.
Missile Defense. Gates plans to shift the focus of missile defense from strategic defense of the homeland to theatre defense and defense against rogue states. He’ll outfit more Aegis ships with SM-3 ABM technology while abandoning implementation of more interceptors and canning the second Air Force airborne laser aircraft. While I’m happy to see the additional Aegis ships and THAAD systems, missile defense is a layered, redundant system – it’s not meant to be a Hail Mary crap shoot.
Slowing Down Some Naval Construction. Gates asserts that we currently have considerable dominance on the high seas. I agree. It may not be so as the navy retires aging ships or should an enemy cripple one of our shrinking supply of aircraft carriers. Gates is willing to fund the replacement for the Ohio class SSBNs (which we will not use this side of Armegeddon) but he’s not willing to fund more flexible aircraft carriers. Littoral ships are fine so far as they go, but they’re no substitute for deep water power.
Aircraft Priorities. The F-22 is expensive, to be sure. But it’s utterly dominant and will remain so for the next generation. And the production line to make them currently exists while the line for the F-35 JSF is just getting tooled up.
Ground Forces. Are we sure that it’s all going to be lightweight counterinsurgency work? Based on its study of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Army quite rightly suspects that ‘counterinsurgency’ may well look a lot like industrial strength ground combat. (H/T to Ace). Yet, I see no increase in Army ground forces and Gates is poised to cut the Brigade Combat Teams favored by the Army.
Again, is Gates assessing the world correctly? I think not. But you be the judge.
Related posts:
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
LinkedIn
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I just don’t get it. Why is DOD the only agency that has to cut and reform? We constantly hear about cost over-runs, but they are working on the cutting edge of technology. When has Microsoft ever developed a product on-time, on-spec and on-budget?
For example, everything I read about the F-22 is that it is completely untouchable even against our own pilots in mock combat. Why wouldn’t we keep buying a few dozen per year to keep the production lines open? China is buying up the most advanced aerospace technology it can get its hands on–especially from Russia. Those Russian planes are designed to fight our current aircraft, but not the F-22.
As we are witnessing right here in Maine, the U.S. DOD civilian workforce is aging rapidly. If we cut too much too fast, we may lose the capability to quickly ramp up production in case of emergency. In case no one has noticed, modern military weapons are no longer interchangeable with civilian goods like they were a few decades ago.
As the only superpower left in the world, we should be able to fight a conventional war and several insurgencies–at the same time. Who else is going to do it? Europe?