iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Robert Gates, Defense Secretary, Talks Pentagon Budget Cuts

Robert Gates Pentagon Budget Cuts

ROBERT BURNS   05/24/11 04:10 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — In a parting shot by one of the nation's longest-serving Pentagon chiefs, Robert Gates on Tuesday warned that shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished American role in the world.

Gates, a self-described "old Cold Warrior" who will retire next month, said that barring a catastrophic world conflict or a new threat to the very existence of the U.S., there will be no foreseeable return to the booming Pentagon budgets of the past decade. "The money and the political support simply aren't there," he said.

This means the Obama administration and Congress must now decide how much military power the U.S. should give up, how that fits U.S. goals for maintaining global influence, and how to pay for it, Gates said.

"A smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things," he said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank that is generally hostile to defense cuts.

His speech marked the culmination of a series of recent remarks in which Gates has acknowledged that the Pentagon's free-spending ways are ending, while also cautioning against budget cuts so deep as to "hollow out" the military. Warning against a temptation for the country to lower its guard and relax when threats seem less pressing, he wants his legacy to be that he steered the Pentagon toward long-term stability.

The Pentagon's budget this year is $530 billion, which Gates called the highest since World War II, adjusting for inflation. It pays not only for an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps and their planes, ships and tanks, but also for a far-flung network of military bases at home and abroad. The Pentagon spends another $150 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although those costs are expected to fall in the years ahead.

President Barack Obama on April 13 announced a plan to reduce defense spending by $400 billion over the next 12 years, and some in Congress – as well as some independent analysts – are calling for far deeper reductions. With an end in sight for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense savings are central to a broader effort to shrink government deficits; the shortfall in the current budget year alone is expected to reach $1.5 trillion.

While noting that Americans are "tired of war," Gates insisted that a strong military will remain in U.S. interests.

"The tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people – accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades – want their country to play in the world," Gates said.

"They need to understand what it could mean for a smaller pool of troops and their families if America is forced into a protracted land war again – yes, the kind no defense secretary should recommend anytime soon, but one we may not be able to avoid." He was not specific about future conflicts, but in the past he has raised the possibility of being drawn into a war on the Korean peninsula while also facing war-or-peace decisions on Iran.

Gates did not spell out his own proposed budget cuts or a vision for a re-ordered military. His press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Gates instead will leave that to a Pentagon-wide strategy and budget review launched last month.

"He does not want to get out ahead of that process and constrain the review team's thinking," Morrell said.

Gates will leave it to his designated successor, Leon Panetta, to make recommendations to Obama based on the review. Gates, a Republican and holdover from the Bush administration, has served as Pentagon chief since December 2006. That is the fourth-longest tenure since the position of defense secretary was created in 1947.

Panetta, currently the CIA director, will start at the Pentagon in early July, assuming he wins Senate confirmation. He will already be familiar with budget pressures. With Osama bin Laden eliminated, the intelligence agencies realize they look like a fat target for budget cuts. Their chief counter-argument is that gutting intelligence budgets led to the shortfalls that allowed the al-Qaida leader to carry out attacks in the first place.

In his speech, Gates said he accepted that budget cuts are coming, but he said some weapons and capabilities should be exempt.

Among those he labeled "absolutely critical" for the nation's security: a new aerial refueling plane for the Air Force, a next-generation fleet of F-35 Air Force strike aircraft to maintain a margin of superiority over Russia and China, more ships and "at some point" a replacement for the Navy's fleet of ballistic missile submarines.

Gates said he has already reduced or eliminated spending in the most obvious areas.

"The `low-hanging fruit' – those weapons and other programs considered most questionable – have not only been plucked, they have been stomped and crushed," he said.

Gates said he realizes that some in Congress believe the Pentagon needs more money, not less.

"As an old Cold Warrior known for most of my career as a national security hardliner, I understand this perspective," he said, adding that defense spending as a share of national wealth is lower today than during previous big wars.

But given world circumstances and the nation's "bleak fiscal outlook," there is no prospect of returning to higher spending.

"Nor do I believe we need to," he said.

___

Robert Burns can be reached at . http://twitter.com/robertburnsAP

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — In a parting shot by one of the nation's longest-serving Pentagon chiefs, Robert Gates on Tuesday warned that shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished...
WASHINGTON — In a parting shot by one of the nation's longest-serving Pentagon chiefs, Robert Gates on Tuesday warned that shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 385
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
11:36 AM on 05/25/2011
Defense = defending one's country against attack. We haven't been attacked by another country since pearl harbor. Which means we are funding an OFFENSE DEPARTMENT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ajax2
11:35 AM on 05/25/2011
Gates: Military Spending To Enter Steep Decline

Since Eisenhower, the decline approaches but never passes through the portal.

The search for bin-Laden wannabes is in high gear.
11:32 AM on 05/25/2011
A smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things" Amen to that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
11:17 AM on 05/25/2011
"shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished American role in the world" - Based on America's track record for the last ten years, this would probably be a good thing. When one country rules the world, death and destruction of minor countries is the order of the day. The idea that everyone in the world should be like Americans is false.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fwwest
71 year old grandmother
11:16 AM on 05/25/2011
It is about time we stopped spending so much on the military and start spending on domestic needs. And stop special interest subsidies and tax breaks.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people taste like crap!
10:54 AM on 05/25/2011
Gates: Military Spending To Enter Steep Decline...........

Sure hope so......it's a massive waste of money.....ignorant fearful people have been wasting financial resources for too long now....just to protect their mostly perceived fears.... it can be cut to a quarter of what it is now without losing anything.
photo
Buckeye54
...the One your mom warned you about!
10:41 AM on 05/25/2011
Along with closing most of our overseas bases, I would do the following:
(1)Eliminate Private Military Contractors (PMCs). These private contractors perform a function once done by our military that can be done cheaper and more effectively by our military.
(2) If a defense contractor is found guilty of fraud, ban them for five years from bidding on contracts and ensure criminal prosecution of those perpetuating the fraud. Give them a three-strike rule: if you're found guilty 3 times of fraud, you're permanently banned from government contracts.
(3) Eliminate no-bid contracts.
(4)Mothball 5 of our 11 carrier battle groups. Not only are these expensive to maintain, this ability to project power worldwide too often tempts us to stick our nose into matters which are none of our business. We should reject the notion that we are the "world's policeman. "
We could probably cut our defense budget in half while at the same time maintaining our commitments to our current servicemembers, their families, and our retired veterans.
photo
halfpricefaustian
Voted for Obama. Waiting for Godot.
10:38 AM on 05/25/2011
"Their chief counter-argument is that gutting intelligence budgets led to the shortfalls that allowed the al-Qaida leader to carry out attacks in the first place."
Of course this begs the issue that were it not for America's military and political intrusions into other parts of the world, al-Qaida would not have attacked us in the first place.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people taste like crap!
10:59 AM on 05/25/2011
It wasn't the short fall that led to al Qaida attacks....it was Bush's failure to take the information Clark and others gave him as serious. There were lots of warnings that were ignored by Bush and Company because it didn't fit in with their planned agenda.
10:00 AM on 05/25/2011
Finally, a voice of realty.
photo
fugmo
Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.
07:18 AM on 05/25/2011
We don't need a STANDING ARMY that's ready to respond to every possible contingency the world may throw at us. What we need is a standing army that can buy us time to switch to a War Economy, including the draft, to respond to any contingency. If a war isn't worth reimplementing the draft, then the war isn't worth fighting. Instead, our volunteers do all the heavy lifting while the rest of us are told to go shopping.
08:15 AM on 05/25/2011
Yeah, because the high quality of military that the draft brought on in Vietnam won us the war. Wait, it didn't.

We do need a standing army, but one that is not so globally involved (2 1/4 wars) in negative actioins. Cutting troop numbers and reactionary forces around the world would mean that we would not not be able to get involved in areas that truly require humanitarian assistance and don't piss the world off so much (tsunamis, earthquakes). I agree that cuts need to be made, but the first place they need to be made is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:25 AM on 05/25/2011
"Robert Gates on Tuesday warned that shrinking defense budgets will mean a smaller military and a diminished American role in the world."

You say that like its abad thing. Best news I've had in 12 years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:19 PM on 05/24/2011
It's about time!
photo
imusintheevening
With,without,who'll deny it's whatthe fights about
09:17 PM on 05/24/2011
GOOD
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:19 PM on 05/24/2011
the government is way behind the people on this. we don't want an empire.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brokerallen
The Middle Class Needs To Take Back America
01:05 AM on 05/25/2011
The rich still do. That's the problems.
11:29 AM on 05/25/2011
We're tired of funding their 'campaigns'. Let them pay for them themselves.

I for one am glad to hear this announcement.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
08:16 PM on 05/24/2011
Smaller Gubment is only possible by shrinking the military.
 
Get to it, Gooptards.  Slash that military budget like Jason Voorhees.