iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Pentagon Leaders: New Plan Would Cut U.S. Ground Forces By 100,000

Defense Cuts

ROBERT BURNS   01/26/12 04:45 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war costs. It drew quick criticism from Republicans, signaling the difficulty of scaling back defense budgets in an election year.

The changes Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described at a news conference are numerous but hardly dramatic. They aim to save money by delaying some big-ticket weapons like a next-generation nuclear-armed submarine, but the basic shape and structure of the military remains the same.

The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia.

Panetta said the administration will ask Congress for $525 billion to run the Pentagon in 2013 – $6 billion less than the current budget. War costs, which are not considered part of the base budget, would decline from $115 billion to $88 billion, reflecting the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The base budget would then increase in each year of the Pentagon's five-year plan, reaching $567 billion in 2017. A year ago the Pentagon had projected 2017 spending to reach $622 billion. The Pentagon counts those reductions in projected future spending as "defense savings."

When Obama took office in January 2009 the Pentagon's base budget was $513 billion. In 2001 it was $297 billion.

Under a budget deficit-cutting deal Congress made last summer, the Pentagon is committed to reducing projected spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. The plan Panetta presented Thursday covers the first five years of that span and would cut a cumulative total of $259 billion in planned spending.

"We believe this is a balanced and complete package," Panetta said.

In a bid to pre-empt election-year Republican criticism, Panetta said the plan begins to shift the Pentagon's focus from the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. More special operations forces like the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden will be available around the world, he said, and the Pentagon will stress improvements in cyberdefenses.

Republicans were quick to pounce on the proposed Army and Marine Corps reductions.

"These cuts reflect President Obama's vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McKeon voted for the bill last August that established the requirement for $487 billion in defense savings over five years.

"Taking us back to a pre-9/11 military force structure places our country in grave danger," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that will hold hearings on the Pentagon budget plan.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Panetta plan "ignores the lessons of history." He said it provides for a military that is "too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years."

The military's top general, however, defended the administration's approach. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is convinced that the risks raised by cutting the size of the military are manageable. He said failing to make these changes would have meant even bigger risks.

"This budget is a first step – it's a down payment – as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," he said, adding, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."

Among other details Panetta disclosed:

--The Air Force would retire some older planes including about two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of its oldest C-130 cargo planes.

-- The Navy would keep a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers but retire seven cruisers earlier than planned. It also would delay purchase of some other ships, including a new Virginia-class submarine.

--Purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, to be fielded by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, would be slowed.

--Current plans for building a new generation of submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles would be delayed by two years. The current fleet of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based nuclear missiles would be left unchanged.

--Military pay raises will remain on track until 2015, when the pace of increase will be slowed by an undetermined amount.

--Obama will ask Congress to approve a new round of domestic base closures, although the timing of this was left vague and there is little chance that lawmakers would agree to this in a presidential election year.

The defense spending plan is scheduled to be submitted to Congress as part of the administration's full 2013 budget on Feb. 13.

The defense budget is being reshaped in the midst of a presidential contest in which Obama seeks to portray himself as a forward-looking commander in chief focusing on new security threats. Republicans want to cast him as weak on defense.

Obama has highlighted his national security successes – the killing of bin Laden, the death of other senior al-Qaida leaders and the demise of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi – to counter Republican criticism. He also has emphasized the completion of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and the start of a drawdown in Afghanistan as turning points that offer new opportunities to scale back defense spending.

But several congressional Republicans see a political opening in challenging the reductions in projected military spending that the GOP and Obama agreed to last summer as part of a deal to raise the nation's borrowing authority. They've echoed Obama's potential presidential rivals Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who plead for fiscal austerity but contend that sizable cuts would gut the military.

___

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata, Lolita C. Baldor and Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.

___

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

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war co...
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war co...
Filed by Paige Lavender  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 860
  • 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 »  (15 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
02:09 AM on 01/28/2012
Although they were inforior in size, the militias defeated the British Army, a superior force of well trained regulars. They were able to to it in large measure because they changed the nature and approach to warfare.

You would think that it should be more acceptable to do more with less. That means being able to move faster, reach farther, use smaller forces that are better trained and better equipped to defeat larger forces. That would put fewer troops in harm's way, shorten war, and save money. That also would reduce the chances for collateral damage. If anyone on the right can provide a reasonable explanation for maintaining as many bases overseas as well as continuing to hold on to older equipment that is costly to maintain, the public would be interested in listening.

The republicans act like a bunch of teenage boys in a locker room measuring themselves to determine who is the most "manly." In this case bigger is not necessarily better or more effective, it's just bigger, not unless the Hawks and necons are interested in maintaining the ability for nation building and occupation.

The true patriots caught on to the need for change over 200 years ago. If you you folks are suppose to be patriots, what's the problem?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
01:48 AM on 01/28/2012
"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Panetta plan "ignores the lessons of history." He said it provides for a military that is "too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years."
-------------------------------------------------->

And exactly what lessons would that be? None of the problems of warfare that this country has experience has been the result of the size of our forces or the ability to deploy sufficient numbers. If anything the lessons may well be the mismanagement of troups and resources, and the politicization of war have been the most siginficant problems and should be the real lessons learned. McCain should be well aware of that since those were the issues that directly plagued the war with which he is most intimately familiar.

McCain, stop propagandizing these budget decisions because your position is not based on reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SportyJim
procrastination app coming soon
05:46 PM on 01/27/2012
Here we go again!
I work for the Navy as a civilian blue collar tradesman. Back in 2005, We faced closure from the BRAC (Base Realignment & Closing), we only stayed open due to our stellar repair record. I'm sure our Shipyard will once again be put on the list, and I have to tell you that the threat of facing closure is unbelievably stressful.
03:57 PM on 01/27/2012
I'll be the first to say Big Government needs to cut unnecessary spending and reduce our countries deficit, that being said "Leave The Military Alone!" If anything we need to boost it's capabilities to counter any threat both domestic and abroad! I support President Obama on something's in this case he's wrong as is all the politicians that support this!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matick
01:16 PM on 01/27/2012
Obama putting more Americans on food stamps and welfare. I guess that is cheaper than protecting the country. When we need the military and they are not there, lets start by drafting his family first.
photo
pcw5150
Un-learn.
09:10 AM on 01/27/2012
Not even close...defense cuts should be in the trillions over the same period. Time for the super-wealthy to find another bully to open up new markets for their depredations.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demandhonesty
07:26 AM on 01/27/2012
The strength of this country is in our economic engine, not in our military budget. If you don't believe me, look what happened to the Soviet Union.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SportyJim
procrastination app coming soon
05:20 PM on 01/27/2012
Uh, we outspent them on defense (Reagan) and they collapsed because they didn't have the economic might to keep up.
06:00 AM on 01/27/2012
Yep! The last time they did this, and Persian Gulf I came about in 1991, the military was cut short and had to call up the US Army Reserves and all those National Guard folks, who have only been attending 1 weekend drill per month (and that's a waste of taxpayers money) and two weeks of fun in the summer. Thisis what is called cutting your nose off in spite of your face. You think that "Big Bro" is bad now....Wait! If Obama lands another 4 years, you can kiss the military readiness goodbye (you know, something that all those liberal Democrats want to do, but are too chicken to do it during an election year).
08:39 AM on 01/27/2012
Mr Warmonger...this nation's might is measured by its economy and not how many persons are wearing a uniform. This nation can increase or decrease the number of its military personnel as needed. People who make such decisions are more intelligent, more educated, more knowledgeable and more experience than you are. Try reading DoD press releases. More progress was made in the War on Terror in the last three years than the Bush43 era who spent like a drunken sailor on the military contractors. The US military is far more effective and economical under President Obama as the last 3 years have shown. So...what are you complaining about?
01:19 PM on 01/27/2012
Uh Huh! That's why all those soldiers ended up with back-to-back deployments because the military wasn't large enough to cushion the time spent in a combat zone. "Mr Warmonger?" You gotta be kidding! It's the soldiers who have faced combat head on that are the ones that dread going into combat first and foremost. Before you "spew" your garbage, put down your laptop and cell phone, join a military branch for several years, and learn a thing or two. Anybody can Google any subject and think they have the answer. Another wrong conception by a liberal democrat!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matick
01:14 PM on 01/27/2012
Absolutely. Obama is intimidated by the military because he is a weak man and is now in a position to show the military how much he despises them. When we are short of men and women in the military, lets start by drafting his family first.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeniorMoment
Retired Expert
05:44 AM on 01/27/2012
The contractors hired by the Defense Department need to be replacedd by soldiers. They and their skills sets are more vital to national defense than nearly all products and services. Replace military contractors with active duty military personnel. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan already said we did too much outsourcing both for cost control and security. Keep the soldiers but reasign them to replace contractor labor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
04:20 AM on 01/27/2012
Buy oil stocks before the Oil Shock!! Whoo-hoo! On to Tehran~! Oil soars to $400/bbl~!
The Heritage Foundation is laying the groundwork to roll back MANDATORY AGREED
UPON ex-Super Committee equitable 50:50 share of Fed budget cuts on Defense (sic),
because WADC/NOVA needs to be EVEN MORE the wealthiest region of entire USA.
tccat4
We all have a right to our opinion, like it or not
04:14 AM on 01/27/2012
Its starting, more than 500,000 people will lose their jobs, they can get unemployment, but how does one take care of a family? Here is some interesting info, you may like to read.
http://www.layofflist.org/2008/12/07/the-real-layoff-numbers-weekend-update/

A Econamist stated that it wouldnt be till 2015 till things start to change. Think Congress & Senate care, their pockets are full, with a 9% approval rating, something needs to change fast.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sundae Driver
"The path to youth takes a whole life." (Picasso)
04:07 AM on 01/27/2012
"When Obama took office in January 2009 the Pentagon's base budget was $513 billion. In 2001 it was $297 billion."

That was a 73% increase in military spending in 8 years. Isn't that a bit excessive? Shouldn't that be scaled back now that WE THINK our intelligence sources are more prepared to better detect threats to our safety since 9/11?

If social-program spending went up 73%, the Right would lose its mind--even though President Obama inherited a country in the worse economic shape than any time since the Great Depression, and aid to Americans is sorely needed.

Some perspective is necessary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
04:25 AM on 01/27/2012
DoD budget now approaches $700 billion, and $100 billion a year for foreign adventurism, with sim 'defense' programs hidden in other agencies, totaling by independent audits $1,495 billion, that's a 500% bump in military spending in ten years, and if we could claw back even 10% of that to rebalance our |ooted Social Security Trust Fund, our seniors wouldn't have to shiver in unheated homes, while 'defense' contract mercenaries take down $375,000 a year and all expenses paid, and WADC/NOVA becomes the wealthiest region in the entire USA.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sundae Driver
"The path to youth takes a whole life." (Picasso)
04:57 AM on 01/27/2012
You obviously know light years more than I do, and it all points to excessive military spending. We need to turn the Congress back to the Dems.
04:28 AM on 01/27/2012
Our military protects the world wide financial interests of the 1% its not about providing defense of the citizens.
03:48 AM on 01/27/2012
Rs: "No more money for frills like education and health care, the Complex needs it to thrive."
Wupta
Parent
03:38 AM on 01/27/2012
Biggest pork barrel blackhole of tax payers money. the military industrial complex is corrupt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
04:29 AM on 01/27/2012
"Any cut to Defense spending is a vote for the Enemy!" Heritage Foundation

No, any cut to defense is a cut TO the enemy. We don't pay our taxes for foreign adventurism, and rampantly out of control science fiction technology, like Reagan's Hypersonic Space Plane, now THIRTY FIVE YEARS and billions in funding, with not a thing to show for it. Star Bubbles.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
wizeanne
wizeanne
03:04 AM on 01/27/2012
Closing the "domestic" bases...for WHAT?...to sell them off to the "Private Security Corporations" for their para-military bases OR private prisons? WTH! Since 2001, the BILLIONS of dollars doled out through DEFENSE/FEMA/HLS for hiring these Private Security Contractors who are NOT accountable for their actions...or inactions...is a WASTE of money. Example: Dyncorp, subsidaries of Halliburton, and the notorius (former Blackwater/XE) now called Academi... to name a few ...to do what...provide security for our military AND to provide "domestic" support to the state, county, local law enforcements ...to assist with "crowd control" and OTHER domestic "disturbances???" Cut that CRAP out of the BUDGET and leave domestic security up to the states at the discretion of a state's Governor, to make that call on each states needs for any "assistance" and it be from a states "National Guard" NOT from PRIVATE Security! Contractors!
03:52 AM on 01/27/2012
Hey, how bout we close bases overseas and bring our troops home? I know they like exotic places but we can't afford that anymore. Actually we never could.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
wizeanne
wizeanne
04:12 AM on 01/27/2012
What was the last count for US military bases overseas ...close to 900? Should close several of those overseas....and bring our troops home to protect our ports of entry and seal off our borders to stop the illegals and drugs being trucked trough and under ground tunnels by the gangs/cartels. Cut ALL the private security contracts for hiring para military troops in foreign countries AND in the USA.