5/7/09

The President’s 2010 defense budget marks the beginning of a strategic shift that attempts to offer a new vision for the 21st century, institutionalize the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, and attack inefficiency and waste.  The conservative response – instead of engaging in a forward –looking debate – clung to an approach that is rooted both in the Cold War and in the discredited vision of former Secretary Rumsfeld. In an address at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Senator John Cornyn attempted to portray the Administration’s defense budget as cashing in on a “peace dividend” in a time of war, since it seeks to cut certain big-ticket programs like the F-22 and the Future Combat Systems. Cornyn never explains how increasing defense spending by more than $20 billion, or about 5 percent, could be considered cashing in on a “peace dividend.”Conservatives have attacked the cuts in big-ticket items recommended by Secretary Gates as weakening America. But these weapons programs have no relevance to the current wars we are in, have often been developed based on an outdated Cold War-style vision of future conflicts, have failed to incorporate many of the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, and are plagued by massive cost over runs and inefficiencies. Gates is attempting to institutionalize the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to ramp up systems devoted to the wars we are in, and to invest in big-ticket weapons programs that are more relevant to the 21st century, such as the F-35 and the Littoral Combat Ship. This budget, contrary to conservative claims, is part of a new strategic vision – put forth by Gates – that seeks to rebalance the military so that it cannot only effectively fight conventional wars but can address the irregular challenges we are most likely to confront in the 21st century.

As Obama administration signals a return to responsible defense budgeting, conservative leadership continues to push for wasteful, unnecessary programs.  In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Senator John Cornyn (R – TX) outlined the conservative vision for defense budgeting, an unsustainable approach designed to address all possible threats, no matter how unlikely or insignificant. “We simply cannot know all the contingencies our troops may have to face in the coming years - so we will need to develop and deploy the full spectrum of capabilities to meet emerging threats,” said Cornyn.  Gates had rejected this position even before Obama took office:  In the January issue of Foreign Affairs, Gates critiqued past defense budget policies, writing  “[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 testimony before Congress in January, Gates 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.” As an April New York Times editorial described, “At his news conference on Monday, Mr. Gates vowed to end programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy ‘more capability than the nation needs.’ If ever there was a weapon that met these criteria, it is the F-22. It was designed for combat against the former Soviet Union and has not been used in the wars this country is actually fighting.” Additionally, Gates is attempting to cut the Future Combat Systems vehicle program, which is the Army’s vehicle modernization program, because it has been characterized by cost overruns, design flaws, and fails to take into account the lessons from Iraq – namely the importance of a v-shaped hull to better protect against IEDs. Senator John McCain, acknowledging the need for reform, supports the budget:, “It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow.” [Senator John Cornyn, 5/07/09. Secretary Gates, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. Secretary Gates, 1/27/09. NY Times, 4/7/09. John McCain, 4/6/09]

New defense budget represents a strategic shift that will finally bring the Pentagon into the 21st century, while addressing America’s current challenges.  Gates has outlined a bold new blueprint for defense strategy numerous times over the past year:  at the Army War College in April, the Air War College a year ago, and articles in Parameters, the journal of the Army War College, and Foreign Affairs.  At the Army War College, Gates said that an “underlying theme in the budget recommendations is the need to think about future conflicts in a different way, to recognize that the black-and-white distinction between conventional war and irregular war is an outdated model. In reality, the future is and will be more complex, where all conflict will range along a broad spectrum of operations and lethality, where even near-peer competitors will use irregular or asymmetric tactics, and non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles.”  Gates continued, “In all, we have to be prepared for the wars we are most likely to fight, not just the wars we've traditionally been best suited to fight or threats we conjure up from potential adversaries who also have limited resources.  And as I've said before, even when considering challenges from nation states with modern militaries, the answer is not necessarily buying more technologically advanced versions of what we built on land, sea and in the air to stop the Soviets during the Cold War.” The next phase for fleshing out this strategic shift will be the updated Quadrennial Defense Review, due to be completed in 2010 – yet conservatives seem to expect the Administration to stay on autopilot. [Senator John Cornyn, 5/07/09. Secretary Gates, 4/16/09. Secretary Gates, 4/21/08. Secretary Gates, Parameters, Summer 2008. Secretary Gates, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009]

An increase in defense spending is not a peace dividend. Conservatives have misrepresented the Obama administration’s defense budget as a cut, when in fact the budget is a $21 billion increase. Cornyn said  “We are about to cash in a so-called "peace dividend" by growing domestic spending and weakening our defenses.”  Other Thomas Donnelly of AEI wrote in USA Today that “President Obama wants to help finance his expansive and expensive domestic program by cutting military spending.” Rep. John McHugh, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, trotted out a similar distortion, saying “[i]f implemented, this proposal will be tantamount to an $8 billion cut in defense spending.”  And Fox News characterized Gates’ proposal as “broad cuts in Pentagon spending.” But as Lawrence Korb notes, “President Barack Obama’s topline budget projections for fiscal year 2010 allocate $534 billion to the Department of Defense, the largest allocation of any department. The amount represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010.” Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler also notes that this dishonest representation has migrated to the mainstream media, including a Time headline which on Monday read, “Gates takes knife to defense budget.” [Senator John Cornyn, 5/7/09. Tom Donnelly, 4/8/09. Rep. John McHugh (R – NY), 4/06/09. Fox News, 4/07/09. Larry Korb, 2/26/09. Talking Points Memo, 4/07/09]

What We’re Reading

Pakistani planes bombed Taliban positions in Swat valley, hours after Pakistani Prime Minsiter Yusuf Raza Gilani ordered the military to “eliminate militants and terrorists,” ending the Swat valley truce.  The U.N. estimates that half a million people have fled the fighting.

U.S. officials admitted for the first time that civilians may have been killed in U.S. airstrikes on Tuesday, but also said reports of 149 deaths were exaggerated.

For the first time, the Pentagon’s budget devotes more funding to the war in Afghanistan than to the war in Iraq.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to appoint a top three-star general to Kabul, in a sign of shifting priorities.

Records suggest that the CIA briefed Congressional leaders repeatedly on interrogation tactics, contradicting public statements by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

North Korea calls U.S. policies “unchanged” under President Obama.

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Jordan to begin his Middle East tour.

U.S. unemployment rose to 8.9%, the highest since 1983, but the pace of layoffs appears to be slowing.  539,000 were cut in April, the fewest in six months.

Iraq’s security forces, while rebuilt and stronger than before, still stumble over shortages, bureaucracy, corruption, political interference and security breaches.

Conservative members of parliament “mercilessly and brazenly… mock[ed], taunt[ed] and ridicule[d]” Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his weekly public Q&A session with MPs.

The National Guard will cut forces after a recruitment drive in the face of rising unemployment created a surplus.

Commentary of the Day

Jeff Israely lays out five things Pope Benedict XVI must do on his Middle East tour.

Hassina Sherjan dismisses the idea of talking to elements of the Taliban, and says the only successful reconciliation must be between the Afghan government and the Afghan people.

Bing West advocates giving the Afghan military a governance role.

Phillip Stevens says that “diplomacy works, but it cannot diffuse every threat.”

Kapil Komireddi discusses the situation in Pakistan.

Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda discusses foreign aid in Africa.