More

Robert Gates Says Urgent Need For Big Cuts At Defense Department

ROBERT BURNS   05/ 8/10 10:46 PM ET   AP

Robert Gates

ABILENE, Kan. — Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

He took aim at what he called a bloated bureaucracy, wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and outlined an ambitious plan for reform that's almost certain to stir opposition in the corridors of Congress and Pentagon.

"The Defense Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated – indeed, every aspect of how it does business," he said in a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in the former commander in chief's home town. Gates, also a Kansas native, addressed a crowd of about 300 from the steps of the library at a ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender in World War II.

The library was a fitting setting for Gates to caution against unrestrained military spending. In his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned of the "grave implications" of having built during that war an enormous military establishment and a huge arms industry that could wield undue influence in American society.

"Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state – militarily strong but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent," Gates said. He recalled Eisenhower's impatience with a mindset within the military that often sought to add new weaponry without regard for cost or efficiency – "pile program on program," as he once put it.

Gates said he had recently come to the conclusion about the urgent need for big cuts in light of the recession and the likelihood that Congress no longer will give the Pentagon the sizable budget increases it has enjoyed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he said.

In earlier remarks to reporters, Gates said it was clear that defense budgets will be tight "for as far into the future as anyone can see."

The current defense budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535 billion; the administration is asking for $549 billion for 2011.

Gates used tough talk to stress that he will personally oversee the effort to reshape the Pentagon bureaucracy, and that he won't be denied.

"We're not going to just roll over to preserve programs that we think we don't need – regardless of where the pressure is coming from," he told reporters Friday.

Pressed to say whether he would remain as defense secretary next year to wage the budget battle with Congress, he replied, "We'll get this done." Gates has told Obama he will remain at the Pentagon through 2010, but his future beyond that is unclear.

Gates said it is highly unlikely that the Pentagon will get Congress to approve budgets in the coming years that grow enough to sustain the current size of the military. That's why he is looking for roughly $10 billion in savings from trimming the bureaucracy and applying that money to sustaining the combat force and investing in its modernization. He said the savings must be repeated in additional years.

"Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do," he said. "These savings must stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time."

Gates noted that for the past two years he has focused his budget cuts on major weapons programs that he believed were unnecessary or unaffordable. He managed to get Congress to agree last year, for example, to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter earlier than previously planned, and he halted an Army ground combat vehicle project that had been a top Army priority.

"More is needed – much more," he said.

That means cutting what he called "overhead" – the bureaucratic machinery that he said chews up about 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget.

In this category he included the hierarchy of flag officers – the generals and admirals who run the military services.

To illustrate his point that there are too many of these top officers, Gates said that while the overall troop strength of the Army was sliced by nearly 40 percent during the 1990s, the reduction in generals and admirals across the military was about half that. He suggested that this was a top-heavy structure that is making it harder to get proper resources to the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan – or for any other unit – has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated and eventually dealt with," he said.

It is widely known, but also widely accepted, in the military that the bureaucracy is bloated.

In his Abilene speech, Gates also took on the Pentagon's approach to setting what it calls "requirements," or the numbers, types and capabilities of weapons it says it needs to accomplish its mission. He suggested that the military has overstated its requirements in a post-Cold War world.

"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.

Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen, the commanding general of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., said Friday that it is obvious there is going to be more intense pressure to save money and that the bureaucracy is going to be a prime target.

"There's tons of bureaucracy," Caslen said in an interview with reporters traveling with Gates, who visited Leavenworth Friday.

Gates later stopped at Fort Riley, Kan., for an hour-long visit with about 100 soldiers' spouses. One woman, referring to the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, asked him plaintively, "Is this ever going to end?"

Gates said the US military will remain involved in Afghanistan for several more years. And he said that beginning in early 2011, soldiers will start spending more time at home between combat tours.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov/

Eisenhower Library: http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
ABILENE, Kan. — Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual ...
ABILENE, Kan. — Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual ...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,013
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
  1 of 5  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
ThatsTheTheWayItIs 10:24 AM on 05/09/2010
See the documentary movie Sputnik Mania for an excellent overview of the Cold War!
Eisenhower made NASA a civilian organization. The military wanted it; he didn't trust them.

From Eisenhower's Farewell Address, 1961:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
05:30 PM on 05/15/2010
What Gates and others who advocate cutting defense spending fail to realize is the value of the US military in peace time. We responded to the earthquake in Haiti, the tsunami in Indonesia, and countless other global disasters with US Navy resources.

11 aircraft carriers may seem like a lot, but the US military should be in the business of military projection, not protection. We need to be able to quickly respond to problems all over the world, the best way to do that is through our aircraft carriers.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
12:09 PM on 05/10/2010
Once again, we see how only Democrats are fiscally responsible.

The spend-and-spend-and-spend-and-spend-and-spend-and-spend ways of "fiscal conservatives" is bankrupting our nation. Time to start slashing that defense budget like Jason Voorhees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yliza
Living Life during Interesting Times
07:55 AM on 05/10/2010
Hmm, I see no mention of an end to hiring contractors to do things that soldiers traditionally did themselves, such as cooking. Getting rid of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater/Xe and their ilk would save us more than what Gates is proposing.
05:32 AM on 05/10/2010
Gates is correct. The DOD budget is double that of a decade ago and we are no safer. Cut major weapons systems for which there is no longer a threat and bring our forces home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
padrushka
question authority
02:05 AM on 05/10/2010
about damned time, long overdue !! but recycling money back into the system? maybe we could take care of the ones that served then bring the rest home so we could begin to take care of our own problems on this side.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:45 PM on 05/09/2010
Some of the people supporting military equipment and status quo at any price are hoarders. They think -
that we may need it in the future (Some equipment is beta in an Iphone world)
that we paid too much in the first place so can't get rid of it even if it hasn't worked (Star Wars)
that it has sentimental value (F-22)
that we have so much "stuff" that it is hard to decide what to get rid of

Seems a shame that they will forgo quality health care and have their children attend schools that have had their school days and vital programs cut in a vain attempt to keep everything the same in the military-industrial complex.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HST
Conservatism = selfishness
07:43 PM on 05/09/2010
The way I see this playing out is the pentagon cuts pay and benefits for the soldiers and the needless weapons systems and the bureaucracy stays put. Defense department gets to claim they trimmed payroll costs and the military industrial complex gets to keep gouging the taxpayers.

A lose-lose situation for the country.
08:38 PM on 05/09/2010
Lose-lose for the USA, but win-win for the House of Saud.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TWhitley
10:39 AM on 05/10/2010
I doubt this scenario sincerely. It's way too pessimistic for reality. And it's counter to recent policies at DoD.

Payroll is not the biggest line item in the military budget. Cut one big weapon system and you've done some good. Nobody gets bragging points for piddly payroll cuts.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mrJJ
05:57 PM on 05/09/2010
the Pentagon announced its projected budget for 2011. The Defense Department will request from Congress $708 billion in their 2011 budget. Judging from previous years, it is likely that this astronomical amount will be easily approve by the US Congress. President Obama indicated very clearly in his State of the Union address that he had no intention to cut the Defense budget.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/FY2011_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Go figure.........
The Notorious PDF
Keen Observer
10:02 AM on 05/10/2010
Because it would be political suicide for him to cut defense budget. The same people ranting about how they hate big government and big spending think it's down right heresy to cut the bloated budget of the Department of Defense. The bigger and more bloated it is, the more they wear it like a badge of honor and pride. Go figure. Then again, these are the same people making fun of government money set aside to deal with volcano disasters are the same ones running to the government for help as soon as there's an oil spill disaster in their state.
The Notorious PDF
Keen Observer
10:19 AM on 05/10/2010
Edit:

Then again, the same people making fun of government money set aside to deal with volcano disasters, are the same ones running to the government for help as soon as there's an oil spill disaster in their state.
05:56 PM on 05/09/2010
meant to say retired officers
05:55 PM on 05/09/2010
The flag officers like the perks. When they go on vacation all over the world they usually stay for free at Officer Quarters.
05:39 PM on 05/09/2010
If big cuts in the defense budget are needed........how about some big cuts in the mission our servicemen and women are expected are expected to accomplish.

I've got it....why don't we just make a SMALL cut in the number of wars we are currently engaged in by....oh,say......two.

ENOUGH ALREADY........US OUT OF IRAQ..........US OUT OF AFGHANISTAN
SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES..........BRING 'EM HOME
TM
07:30 PM on 05/09/2010
Bu they are over there protecting America. How could they possibly do that back home?
04:01 PM on 05/09/2010
They could start saving a little money by getting rid of napalm stockpiles.
Unless, of course, they are thinking of incinerating little girls again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danoosh
Prolific Patentee (30+), writer!
02:39 PM on 05/09/2010
When Robert Gates suggested that there may not be enough money in the defense buget to allow for a military response to Iran's nuclear build-up, the defense secretary gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another "win" over the Obama Administration. With every day that goes by it seems that the Obama Administration feeds the Iranian leader more and more reason to consider the United States a "paper tiger," and ignore its demands.
The Gtaes statement now leaves Iran free to continue, or rather to accelerate, its nuclear development. The only deterrent the "free world" has left is Israel, should the Jewish nation decide to execise its nuclear-muscle and take-out Iran's nuclear works. Even much of the Arab Middle East seems to feel that an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes is the most viable solution to the Iran nuclear threat, as was demonstrated by Mubarak's allowing Israeli submatines to use the Suez Canal on a practice run which may be leading to a both and air and sea actions against Iran....
Secretary Gates' most recent statement may just have provided Israel with the incentive it needed to become pro-active in dealing with Iran's threat to the world.

Dan Goor: www.zyonism.com; www.dangoor,wordpress.com
photo
2bad
I'll be takin these Huggies and any cash ya got.
04:56 PM on 05/09/2010
"Even much of the Arab Middle East seems to feel that an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes is the most viable solution to the Iran nuclear threat"

Really? Do you have some way to back-up this claim?

Funny how the West kept quiet about Israel's nuclear ambitions and didn't say a word about how destabilizing it would be or how other Middle East countries would feel the need for their own nuclear stockpile to keep up with the Israeli threat.

The USA is doing everything it should with Iran. To suggest Israel should nuke them is insanity! Ahmadinejad is doing exactly what he hoped to do. Whip-up his base and provoke the knee jerk far-right in the West into doing something stupid. He obviously knows how to get to people like you.

If you want MORE war in the Middle East I hope you and your family are on the front lines, Sparky.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:31 PM on 05/09/2010
"Gates suggested that there may not be enough money in the defense buget to allow for a military response to Iran's nuclear build-up, the defense secretary gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another "win" over the Obama Administration."

What are you talking about? Please provide a quote for Gates' statement.

Most experts don't believe that Iran has functional nukes anyway. And besides, your idea that Israel is the only deterrent against Iran left in the free world is utterly preposterous. The U.S. is the biggest exporter of arms around the world. Where do you think Israel gets most of its weapons? The U.S. most certainly has the capability to attack Iran if it or Israel was foolish enough to do it.
01:03 PM on 05/09/2010
"That's why he is looking for roughly $10 billion in savings from trimming the bureaucracy and applying that money to sustaining the combat force and investing in its modernization. He said the savings must be repeated in additional years."

This is not cutting the budget at all, it is just moving money around. This is about cutting administration to buy more weapons. And as a percentage of the budget it is less than 2%. Furthermore, this budget figure does not include the cost of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess am happy to hear about the desire to cut bureaucracy (although in reality this means more unemployed...), but I would like to see real cuts made in the military budget wherever possible.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Red Herring
Retired Miner, living in third world
12:35 PM on 05/09/2010
The current defense budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535 billion; the administration is asking for $549 billion for 2011.

He does not have a snowballs chance in hell of reducing the military budget when he has no idea of how much the USA even spends on military. It is more like 1.5 trillion per year. That is with defence contractors,homeland security, intelligence( all 14 agencies) and wars thrown in.
He wants to save 10 billions of that. WOW.imagine that a cut of 1/2 of 1%. Delicate surgury indeed. Something like cutting a pimple off a sperm whale's ass.
In America the Military is God and making war is God's work.
What is truly amazing about all of this is that the best military in the world with a 1.5 trillion budget per year, with 11 carrier groups and 1000 bases around the world has been fought to a standstill by a few Afganis living in caves, making IEDs out of fertiliser and armed with grenades and AK 47s.
Maybe the US military should fire all of it's Generals and Admirals and plead with the Taliban Military Commanders to take over the Pentagon so that the USA could develop some real war fighting skills. Obviously the present bunch are no dimmer than peaches but certainly no brighter.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Arthur
01:50 PM on 05/09/2010
Are you trying to be an idiot?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Red Herring
Retired Miner, living in third world
04:40 PM on 05/09/2010
Nope, just stating the obvious. Even someone as thick as you should be able to see that.
04:47 PM on 05/09/2010
Well, the only way they continue to "justify" or get away with pouring such gargantuan sums of money into their war racket is by making sure "a few Afganis living in caves, making IEDs out of fertiliser and armed with grenades and AK 47s" appear to be an apocalyptic threat to us.
Fear causes people to abandon fact and logic and remain superbly compliant.
All in a days work for war-criminal Gates.