Defense Secretary Declares War On Budget Control Act As Hollow Force Looms by Loren Thompson, Forbes
One day after Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel disclosed details of the Obama Administration’s proposed defense budget for fiscal 2015, I joined a group of analysts and journalists at the Pentagon to discuss the budget request with him. Hagel largely reiterated what he had said the previous day, but two things quickly became apparent in our meeting. First, he is determined to move the nation’s military posture into a new era as the bulk of U.S. forces departs Afghanistan. Second, he thinks the 2011 Budget Control Act capping annual defense expenditures is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible exertions of congressional authority in modern times.
Apparently much of Congress agrees with him on the budget law, because three years after it began taking effect, legislators still have not permitted the full impact of the cuts contained in the law to be felt at the Pentagon or domestic agencies. The most recent palliative, known as the Bipartisan Budget Act, scaled back mandated reductions in fiscal 2014 and 2015 (the budget year beginning October 1). But the relief provided in 2015 is modest, and thereafter the strictures of the 2011 law remain in effect into the next decade. Hagel says that if the reductions are not scaled back or removed, the joint force will be smaller, less ready, and less well equipped than national security requires…
Comments
Regarding readiness, should we not ask the critical question: Ready to do what?
After the Cold War, we decided to use our military forces in the classic tasks of "invade, conquer and occupy." Via these methods, we hoped to overthrow the oppressive regimes, liberate the oppressed populations and help these populations transform -- more quickly -- along modern western political, economic and social lines.
We soon learned, however, that the populations, thus liberated, were as likely -- or more likely -- to (1) descend into chaos or to (2) adopt ways of life and ways of governance that were even less compatible with US interests.
This realization, now understood, tending to eliminate the rationale for our earlier actions.
So today, not only is "stability operations" off of the military's table but also, for all intents and purposes, "invade, conquer and occupy," and regime change.
Thus, begging the question: For what few remaining tasks must our military forces be "ready" to accomplish?
"Building partner capacity?" (To force the populations to transform as we desire?)
Just how large, capable and ready a force do we need to accomplish this lesser task (when compared, for example, with "invade, conquer and occupy")?
Congress has clear duties:
To "raise and support Armies," to "provide and maintain a Navy," but more importantly "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
To overly invest in "common defense" or in "general welfare" so as to make it so that we cannot "collect taxes" adequate to "pay the debts" of our nation is to fail in their mission. Clearly, they are failing.
Similarly I believe it is the duty of military to ensure that whatever force is funded by the Congress is designed and managed so as not to be "hollow."
Any Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or Service Chief who predicts a "hollow force" as a mechanism to coerce the Congress to fund what the military deems it wants over what the Congress has deemed that it needs should be called to task to explain him or herself publicly. The military must offer realistic offsets that allow a smaller, but fully functional force to remain. Then the duty is back on the Congress to kill multi-billion dollar programs that are preventing a functional force. But the Military cannot both keep all of its Service Programs intact and cry "hollow force."
We must do realistic threat and risk assessments and make the hard decisions all of these military and civilian leaders were selected, appointed, or elected to make.
Personally, I think in eras of peace (and conflicts of choice), we garner savings by assuming risk in the size of our ground force and the size and modernity of our tactical air and sea platforms. Prioritize strategic platforms and programs that allow us to deter major threats, maintain commerce, and conduct blistering punitive expeditions rapidly, globally, and of short duration. Also make it harder for Presidents to launch us into military adventures that sap our national strength, wealth and influence without first having time for reasonable national debate.
After all, it is not so much how we waged or ended conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan that have damaged our nation - it is how we began them.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that this piece represents editorial policy at Forbes. The author runs a think tank with strong links to the defense industry and clearly knows where his bread is buttered, but it's an opinion piece by a contributor, not an editorial.
Defense spending generates "corporate profits" in the defense sector, but that doesn't mean the corporate sector across the board will necessarily support it. Other corporate sectors will gain very little, and stand to lose as Federal deficits grow and pressure rises for increased taxes on corporations and the high net worth individuals who run them and invest in them. There's certainly no overwhelming financial reason for non-defense corporations and investors to support high military spending, and defense is not that large a component of the corporate economy.
There's also not much reason for the corporate or financial sectors to support high defense spending out of fear or a perceived need to protect prosperity. The greatest threats to American prosperity are not external and military, they are internal and likely to be exacerbated, rather than alleviated, by high defense spending. The most pressing external concern would probably be the remaining threat of a closure in the Straits of Hormuz due to issues with Iran, but it's hard to see how more spending would reduce that probability.
I am possibly cynical, but it seems to me that the SecDef is resorting to a classic bureaucratic method to resist budget cuts. Most Government agencies faced with a reduced budget will not try to increase efficiency and try to provide the goods and services with less. Instead, they will announce cuts to highly visible and popular programs and threaten drastic reductions in capability, in an effort to generate a backlash and get "their" money back. Realistically, as you say below, a huge military force does no good if you bankrupt yourself in order to pay for it, and the military, like every other part of government, is going to have to find ways to do the job with the available resources. The blank check is no longer a realistic option.
Carl,
I concede that I am largely just annoyed.
I guess my point in the first paragraph is that the people who follow Forbes are more like Depardieu than like me and you. They do have the resources to move. They may even have property in Europe or the Caribbean. They do not need a strong America, only one that pays a lot for what they are selling.
Corporations are not people, but they are owned by people who own shares of the company. Interestingly enough, there are no laws I know of that prohibit foreign ownership of, say, Lockheed Martin. So if China were to purchase a sufficient number of shares in the company, they could move it to Vanuatu. ;-)
As I noted, I am mostly venting. I have commented elsewhere that in my mind we defeat ourselves if we keep trying to fund a military designed to defend against an enemy that is only in our own mind. I use to tell my troops that if you are pulled out of the fight because of illness or injury you are just as combat ineffective as if you were a casualty. If we bankrupt the nation paying for defense then we still provide the enemies of this country a victory the same as if we lost against them in direct combat … just ask the Soviet Union.
Curmudgeon:
My comment mostly had to do with the viewpoint of Forbes magazine but we can go with corporations too. Those corporations are made up of individual people who are not Gerard Depardieu. They can't pack up and move tomorrow. They are stuck here like the rest of us because they are the rest of us and have pretty much the same interests as the rest of us. 'Corporations' don't enjoy their wealth because a corporation is only a nominal legal entity. The people in that entity have to live somewhere and most people who live here want to stay living here. This goes for the people who are the corporations that are players in the defense industry here in the US. Those players have a very specific interest in the US. Their is no place else for them to go even if they want to. Lockheed Martin can't pack up and move to Vanuatu. Their wouldn't be enough room and the Vanuatuan defense budget is to small. So I think your evaluation of that is overstated.
Now that does not mean corporations aren't self interested. They are. But that is something that is predictable and the military and the government should be able to deal with that. In the case of Lockheed Martin and the F-35 the military and the government haven't been able to.
Your second paragraph describes the bureaucratic imperative. There is nothing new in that.
Vent away. It does seem to be a fight between the interests of the country and somebody's pocket.
Carl,
Of the Forbes 100 richest people in the world only 36 are American. Further, wealth is no longer tied to a single country as it once was but is not transferable internationally in minutes. The Actor, Gérard Depardieu, became a citizen of Russia because it had lower taxes and there wasn't a whole lot France could do about it. Companies, people, and money move across the globe quickly and easily. I think it imprudent to believe that any corporation is wed to the US out of some sense of duty or the belief that America is the only place that they can enjoy their wealth. It is true that there are still places around the world where there is the distinct possibility of having your business nationalized, but they are not as common as they once were. Thankfully, China is still one of them (although they do not take the business, they only require a 50% interest in your company). I think it naive to believe that players in the defense industry have any specific interest in the US. But you are correct, I am a skeptic.
Part of my job is monitoring budget expenditures on certain programs across the US. The program ensures the Commander’s are in regulatory compliance. In the four regions I have, three maintain a staff of about 20. The fourth has nearly doubled that. As a result that fourth region uses their entire budget on personnel and end up requesting additional funds when issues arise. They justify their staff by arguing, accurately, that they cannot predict the future and therefore need to be prepared for anything. Yet, other regions have analyzed the likely problems and placed resources against those without any significant difference in compliance between the four. The only difference is the philosophy. One attacks the problem by claiming they can’t predict the future and must maintain a robust staff. The others analyze historical data and current trends to take reasonable risk. I have yet to see any realistic analysis in how DoD are viewing the budget. So, once again, I remain a skeptic.
"Gentlemen, We Have Run Out Of Money; Now We Have to Think" is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill. I guess I haven't seen any thought put into the DoD budget. That may not be the fault of the military. There are many hands in districts all across the country that are trying to maintain thier slice of the pie. I often think that this is a game of brinksmenship between those that are interested in defense and those that see the defense budget as a wealth redistribution mechanism ... but that is just me venting.
Curmudgeon:
Maybe the cynicism is justified but Forbes probably realizes that wealth creation is of little consequence if you can't protect it and they probably realize also that freedom of navigation is as important to wealth creation and preservation as anything and they also are Americans. Just because somebody is in business or cares about business doesn't mean the rest of the concerns of life are forgotten. As I said you may be right but not everybody acts like multi-stars and puts career ahead of country.
Always consider the source. Why does Forbes magazine care about a "Hollow Force"? Perhaps because a reduced DoD budget cuts into corporate profits. On their mission statement their editor states:
"Forbes.com offers up-to-the-minute reporting, interactive tools and tough-minded analysis on the people, companies and technologies driving business and creating wealth. - Paul Maidment, Editor, Forbes.com" http://images.forbes.com/fdc/mediakit/MISSION.PDF
So are the issues regarding the "Hollow Force" a question of defending America or defending business and wealth creation?