A heretic responds

Posted By Kori Schake Thursday, October 13, 2011 - 6:20 PM Share

Since I have often argued in these electronic pages for reducing defense spending, I feel the need to respond to Tom Mahnken's post, and hopefully draw out the arguments for and against maintaining or increasing our current DOD accounts.

I agree with Tom that our current level of defense spending is not an undue burden on the American economy. Since the end of World War II, spending levels have been far in excess of our current roughly 4 percent of GDP without demonstrable negative economic effects.

But three other factors persuade me that reductions to defense spending should be undertaken. First, we have a national security vulnerability of epic proportions in our federal debt. Defense is not the primary cause of that debt; obviously, our medical and retirement programs need to be reduced and brought into sustainable proportions. But defense is a significant contributor to the debt. Military strength is not the sole basis of American power -- our economy, our values, our vibrancy demand we put ourselves on sound financial footing, which requires us to address the problem of American debt addiction. I have a difficult time seeing how either the math or the politics work to bring federal spending into line with receipts if conservatives rule defense out of bounds.

Second, our near-term margin of error is actually enormously wide in defense compared to any prospective challenger. The world is much more conducive to American interests than it was when Defense spending as a proportion of GDP was much higher: we are militarily dominant, the threats to us are fewer and less apocalyptic, our allies are more capable to handle their own problems, our enemies less so, and our values on the ascendancy. Coming off two intellectually and operationally demanding wars, the American military is weary but amazingly proficient and adaptive. 

Moreover, our military services are better than at any time in history. They have conducted a rolling modernization, replacing equipment with much better equipment as it was exhausted in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have battle tested forces that can successfully span the spectrum from high-intensity warfare to counterinsurgency, excelling at individuals taking initiative. While others may learn from studying our operations, there's no substitute for the doing we have been doing.

Third, the American military is brilliant at effectiveness; efficiency, not so much. As Admiral Mullen confessed during the last budget cycle, money has been plentiful in DOD for so long we've forgotten how to budget and economize. We tend to overwhelm problems with resources. That's not a bad strategy, but it's a profligate strategy, and we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our strongest suit is not spending but innovation, and because of the demands of the wars, we have a military primed for tackling the problems with more innovative approaches.

Spending does not guarantee capability; in many cases, it impedes finding better solutions and creates complacency. We have more than doubled the baseline budget in the past ten years, even before adding in the operational costs of the wars. Is the world twice as dangerous as it was in 2001? I doubt it. Besides, inputs are not the right measure of outputs. I believe it's genuinely wrong to equate spending with commitment to defense. Our safety lies in our ability to find better solutions, not our ability to spend more than our adversaries.

I'd be very interested in Tom and other Shadow colleagues' thinking on the three issues of whether they consider debt a greater threat, our margin of error militarily wide, and whether they see the need for greater efficiency in our approach to defense challenges.

SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:DEFENSE SPENDING
 

GRAY HAT

1:56 AM ET

October 14, 2011

Well reasoned and well

Well reasoned and well expressed. But in one area, at least, the writer's outlook seems awfully sanguine.

If and when swarms of ballistic missiles sink two of our carriers on the same day, we will discover that our margin of error was not so wide. Profound and doubtless expensive R&D is urgently needed to secure the Pacific fleet. What are the chances that project will be undertaken amid across-the-board cutbacks?

 

SILENTSHWAN

3:47 AM ET

October 14, 2011

Orthodox for Life.

Just because it's not 6% or 8% doesn't make it an undue burden, I doubt anyone is going to argue our economy is as terrific as it was in the 80's or 90's. While many economists (Szymanski, Baran & Sweezy) pointed in the past that Military Spending can stave off stagflation, times are different. What Makes it an undue burden is the fact that it's not efficient NOR effective spending, and the only way your going to make the DOD change that is by cutting their allowance to teach them value of a dollar.

Military Personnel Costs continue to skyrocket due to their sense of entitlement. Those 1.6% pay increases every year add up you know, and now we're at a spot where CBO says on average a soldier, sailor, airman or marine makes 75% more than a civilian of comparable age, education or experience (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11463). Unless that comparable civilian is a defense contractor (which almost number 1 for 1 in Afghanistan and actually outnumber military in CENTCOM), in that case they make around TEN times more than that uniformed individual. I won't even being to talk about Tricare, needless to say unless their premiums are raised they'll end up being trouble just like medicaid and medicare. I'll say that I'll stand that the Military retirement system is fine the way it is though.

Everyone gushes over how adaptive our military is after these 10 years, and I beg to differ. COIN has been exposed, and the Emperor (Petraeus) has no clothes. "Can Intervention Work?" (http://www.amazon.com/Intervention-Amnesty-International-Global-Ethics/dp/0393081206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318558838&sr=8-1) has excellent written points on how the Military or COIN has little to do with nation building. I might give the Marines credit for Helmand, and the Air Force credit for Balad, but I will not endorse the United States Army for their job performance in Iraq. They are not better in Urban Operations, they are not better at Low Intensity Conflicts, and I would wager their dependence on contractors would seriously endanger their ability to conduct actual warfare.

I would like to see examples of:

"a rolling modernization, replacing equipment with much better equipment as it was exhausted in Iraq and Afghanistan". Because headlines like "Army's faulty computer system hurts operations" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58051.html) and "MRAP Failure" (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docUploaded/JFQ_MRAPs.pdf) and "Osprey Down: Marines Shift Story on Controversial Warplane’s Safety Record" (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/osprey-down/) seem to be countering this point. We haven't used our vaunted F-22 raptors in sorties even though we've been told it's excellent at dropping GBU-32 and GBU-39's. Oh yeah, that's because every F-22 has been grounded and EVERY F22 PILOT HAS LOST CURRENCY. Land Warrior, Nett Warrior, Future Combat Systems, RAH-66j all have died for the Army. the DD-1000s are decomposing at the molecular level......EVERY service has failed to field new generation weapons and equipment this decade.

"We have battle tested forces that can successfully span the spectrum from high-intensity warfare to counterinsurgency, excelling at individuals taking initiative." Maybe the Marines, perhaps. The only place the Army still even attempts Conventional War is the HBCT at Camp Casey, and as anyone knows, it's not been pretty up there since 2006. As for COIN, I stand by my previous statements. Our brightest officers are jumping ship, and the Army is still reeling as all those CAT IIIs and CAT IV recruits are now in the E-5/E-6 range.

The Military is neither Effective nor Efficient at this point. We are worried about finding a marginally better carbine to replace the M-16/M-4 yet we cancel projects that have far ranging possibilities such as the Navy's Rail Gun and "Death Ray". We spend Billions marginally improving our Carriers even though not only do we have more than twice the number of every other carrier on this planet, the surface area of the flight decks are in the triple range. If you truly believe our military is primed for innovative solutions then we don't need to waste damn near trillions on boondoggles.

The costs of these wars are already in the trillions and are nowhere near close to being done. Our amazing medical advances means simply that there's more wounded soldiers to care for through the entirety of their lives with the VA. Depending on the report 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 have PTSD from these operations so there's more legacy spending. Our generous post 9/11 GI bill will soon be available to the 49,000+ soldiers that are about to be cut in the next 10 years. So even if half end up taking the 9/11 bill that'll be around 1.8 billion for free (whereas every soldier that wanted the Montgomery gave $1200 to go to a bond so in the end both the student and our government made out )

Ten years of these operations gave us what? Iran shelling the Kurds (http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_Continues_Shelling_Kurds_In_Iraqi_Territory_/1623746.html) while Shi'a extremists are poised to take over the country. The US trying to make peace with the Taliban, which will most likely lead to them gaining power right back, which means how long before we see more executions in the Olympic stadium again?

Our defense budget, just like our military, is ill planned to defend United States interests abroad for the future. As such, it is undue, it is unsustainable, and it is draining our economy. Drastic change is needed to transform our military into a competent, professional, effective and efficient force that will be capable of overcoming any variable in global events be it war with Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Pakistan or nation building in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe again (I'm sure we've pretty much blew the middle east).

Stop pretending everything is okay.

 

CRUISER4NEWS

7:55 PM ET

October 15, 2011

American Voters want to REEL IN THE MILITARY BUDGET

DID OBAMA APPROVE THE MILITARY WARTIME CONTRACTING?

$60 BILLION IN FRAUD out of $204 billion paid for Contracting.

$360 MILLION paid to sub contractors of the TALIBAN.

Iraq & Afghanistan Hearing on Wartime Contracting Report: Watch the Video: GO TO C-SPAN.ORG

$31 billion to $60 billion has been lost to waste in contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a special commission's final report on the subject. The Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC) says that is a conservative estimate and the result of “mismanaged” military contracts.

In its final report to Congress, the Commission said that much of the fraud and waste could have been avoided, and identified lessons learned from the past two years of hearings and recommenda¬tions to improve future dealings with private contractors.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the report offers additional proof that stronger management of contracts is key to successful government agendas and business endeavors. "That is a lesson that must be applied not only to wartime contracting but to contracting across all federal agencies as we seek to improve government performance, especially in a struggling economy," Lieberman said.

Sen. Lieberman's committee interpreted the CWC's report and provided suggestions for turning the findings into legislation. One round of witnesses included several CWC commissioners.

American Voters want to REEL IN THE MILITARY BUDGET now before this goes too far.

AMERICA should not be known THE War Monger Nation.

Why has the military been so adverse to audit & investigate this issue on economic and security management?

American Voters want to limit military use for our Allies and the USA only.

Obama is abusing his power and is out of control.

Can we put up with 4 more years of this?

CRUISER4NEWS GO TO C-SPAN.ORG

 

OJ.SAL92

9:40 PM ET

October 19, 2011

I find this

Disappointingly optimistic. The world is not more conducive to America interests, the world is more dangerous, and MUCH more unstable. The world has never been more complicated. And no, our military is not efficient. Our military is designed for WWII warfare, they type of warfare we thought we'd have with the Soviet Union. War has changed. That's why we won in Korea, and lost in Vietnam, and were ineffectual in Iraq, and failed in Afghanistan. Decreased strike zone.

But, I do agree with the fact that we DO need to decrease defense spending, because, well, the military is not any more holy than anything else up for cutting. Besides, like you say, our military has gotten complacent. We need to give them less, and maybe they'd be motivated to adapt our military to war the way it is today, and not yesterday.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More