2/3/09

Two weeks into the Obama Administration, instead of a serious policy debate over defense spending and priorities, conservatives have taken an Obama budget request for an 8 percent increase, in line with Bush Administration recommendations, and turned it into a “cut.” In today’s Washington Post, Robert Kagan – a prominent neoconservative – provides a perfect snapshot of the vacuous nature of conservative thinking on defense policy.  His op-ed picks up a Fox News false premise:  that an OMB-ordered decrease in the Pentagon’s initial wish list amounts to a “10 percent cut in defense spending.” Yet CQ reports that the administration plans to increase the 2010 defense budget to $527 billion from $487 billion –an eight percent increase in line with the recommendations of the Bush administration for FY2010 defense spending. Only in the nonsensical world of conservative commentators could a $40 billion increase over the previous year represent a 10 percent cut. But what is perhaps more troubling then conservatives’ manipulation of numbers to score political points is the complete lack of vision demonstrated in their advocacy for more defense spending. Having been tremendous advocates of the bankrupt Rumsfeld vision of “transformation” through high-dollar, high-tech defense acquisitions, neo-conservatives are now calling for more spending for the sake of more spending without putting forth any clear conservative vision for what this spending is supposed to achieve – except, perhaps, to portray progressives as weak on defense.  Bernard Finel in Defense News notes that, “The abuse of national security arguments to win political arguments is both morally suspect and threatens the security of the nation by delinking strategic assessment from public policy.”

Conservatives using fuzzy math and misleading numbers on defense budget.   According to CQ, “[t]he Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 Defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday,” a top line number recommended by the outgoing Bush administration, and an 8% increase in defense spending over fiscal 2009.  However, conservatives “are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it with a $584 billion draft budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal 2010.”    Fox News, for example, used the headline “Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts” when the actual story was that “the Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the   Pentagon's budget request [italics added] for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent,” and failed to clarify that overall defense spending would increase by roughly $40 billion if the Obama budget is enacted. [CQ, 2/02/09. Fox News, 1/30/09]

Conservatives like Kagan offer no new strategy and are advocating spending for the sake of spending. Kagan argued that cuts would “unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation,” and that such a policy “cheers and emboldens potential adversaries.” Yet the Obama administration’s budget request would be more than the combined 2009 budgets of the next 11 largest military powers, 9 of whom are U.S. allies, according to the Institute for International Studies. Additionally, years of ballooning defense budgets under the Bush administration have done nothing to “unnerve” our adversaries or “embolden” our allies. A more insightful critique of undisciplined Bush Administration spending comes from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who wrote “[t]he United States cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything. The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs.”  In fact, Secretary Gates’ assessments of defense priorities diverge sharply with Kagan’s.  In Gates’ recent testimony before Congress, he stated that the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing and that “[o]ur procurement and preparation for conventional scenarios must, in turn, be driven more by the actual capabilities of potential adversaries, and less by what is technologically feasible given unlimited time and resources.” [Robert Kagan, 2/02/09. International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2009. Secretary Gates, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. Secretary Gates, 1/27/09]

The defense budget needs to match resources to priorities.  A Center for National Policy report sets out the choice starkly: “Priorities will need to be set, and needs met, as funding becomes available. While research and development should proceed apace, our procurement of multi-billion dollar weapons systems should be placed on temporary hold while we set priorities based on budget realities and security needs.” Secretary Gates himself has called for this shift:  in the current Foreign Affairs, he writes, , “The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs.  The strategy strives for balance in three areas: between trying to prevail in current conflicts and preparing for other contingencies, between institutionalizing capabilities such as counterinsurgency and foreign military assistance and maintaining the United States' existing conventional and strategic technological edge against other military forces, and between retaining those cultural traits that have made the U.S. armed forces successful and shedding those that hamper their ability to do what needs to be done.”A 2008 report from the Center for American Progress says, “Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted the changing threat environment for the United States. It is increasingly likely that, in this post-9/11 world, U.S. troops will more frequently be assigned to non-traditional warfare tasks, including both kinetic and non-kinetic counterinsurgency operations, rather than full-scale conventional wars with near-peer competitors. While proficiency in conventional warfare cannot be allowed to lapse, the next administration should consider the type of conflicts most likely to be encountered when allocating limited funding to procurement, training, force expansion, and other budgetary requests.” [Center for National Policy, 12/09/08. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. Center for American Progress, 12/10/08]

What We’re Reading

Iran announced that it has launched its first domestically-made satellite.

North Korea stirs nuclear worries.  Various reports, including from South Korea, warn of preparations for a possible missile test.

Taliban forces blew up a bridge in the Kyber Pass region, forcing a halt in the transit of NATO supplies from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The new leader of the African Union, Muammar al-Qadhafi, seeks a single African state.

The E.U. criticized the “Buy American” clause in the U.S. stimulus bill.

Maliki supporters appear to have gained in the provincial elections.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal thanked Iran for many kinds of support, but did not mention any specific military support.

An Australian court sentenced a Muslim cleric to 15 years for forming a terrorist cell.

Detainee-informant Yasim Muhammed Basardah poses legal questions.

Commentary of the Day

Paul B. Stares warns the U.S. to prepare for instability in North Korea.

CSM looks at Iran’s “waiting game” with the Obama administration.

Andrew Kuchins and Samuel Charap argue that the economic crisis offers opportunities for better US relations with Russia.