Can the Pentagon do Hope and Change?

Hope and change are a lot to ask for. How about a sign of cautious optimism instead?
Like fiscal accountability across all the government -- including the Defense Department. America's economic crisis demands that every federal agency cut back and sacrifice. The Pentagon is the most undisciplined of all our bureaucracies. Furthermore, we are paying too much for defense considering that we're not getting a 21st century security strategy for it. The department must act now to gain financial control of its operations -- which have been made worse by repeated supplemental war spending bills that receive very little scrutiny. The DoD's problems aren't completely of its own making. Rampant privatization, lax civilian oversight, a political climate conditioned by fear and a backward looking self-image have created the biggest single agency challenge facing the new administration. Like a trust-fund teenager escaped to Rome, the department has made a lifestyle out of self-indulgence. It's up to the Obama administration to prod it back onto a more responsible path.

It is in our national security interest to get the DoD's fiscal books in order. Secretary Gates will testify on Tuesday in front of Congress about defense priorities. Financial integrity should be the centerpiece of his testimony. The nation's economic crisis is a major incentive to identify savings in the Pentagon budget -- but the even bigger urgency lies in our inability to derive a modern strategy for our security as long as current unaccountable defense spending continues. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but we're still better prepared to fight Napoleon than Al Qaeda -- and Congress has yet to make the tough tradeoffs that today's threats require. Gates has already been a tremendous evangelist for re-balancing our national security tools (increasing diplomacy, preventive measures and economic support to reduce over reliance on the military). He even voiced a willingness to put part of his budget toward it. All of this has been a welcome message. On Tuesday, Secretary Gates should follow up on this generous offer by saying that the Defense Department is willing to draw the budget line at current services -- increased with inflation -- but no more -- until a strategy review has taken place.

Wonkish but important background: The Commander in Chief in a bind.

A few months ago, the military services made a deft political move by announcing that the projected defense budget must increase by around 450 billion dollars over the next six years above what they previously thought they needed. Keep in mind that -- since 2005 -- 20-25% of the resources for Defense have not gone through any normal budgeting process. But this latest budget demand may well include an additional 70 billion over the Bush administration's 2009 numbers. This total amounts to a 10% budget increase embedded in the 2010 budget. This is just a "wish list" -- the planned budget has not been seen outside the Pentagon and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Again, this is a document that has been seen by few, and has never been submitted nor even "scrubbed" by budget officials. President Obama's policies have had no influence over it. And even more, this increase in the regular budget was prepared along with the knowledge that we'd have yet another war supplemental. The reason it is so important to put this on the table now and scrutinize it openly is that the amount agreed to over the next 30 days -- for 2010 -- will represent what budgeteers call a "topline" -- a critical benchmark. The amount put forward in the first year will be the measurement for all subsequent decisions about defense budget priorities and spending. President Obama is in the delicate situation of needing to reign in the defense budget produced by Gates when he worked for Bush. And the conservative echo chamber is already cranking up the vintage wurlitzer with talking points about weak, anti-military Democrats. For the sake of our nation's security, these voices should be disregarded.

Under any circumstance, it is difficult to criticize defense spending. Even more when our country is a lead player in two wars. Our military is tired and its stuff is worn out. Everyone is talking about the need to "re-set". But let's be honest, it is shocking that -- at 700 billion dollars a year and counting -- the DoD can still claim to be a victim of budget scarcity.

Reforming defense spending will be a long term process that will require order and discipline. A big step forward would be for the president or Congress to appoint an independent panel to investigate defense spending -- composed of individuals who do not stand to profit from their participation. On Tuesday, Armed Services Members could ask some questions that:

1. relate your own excellent roles and missions report to budget choices
2. make sure the DoD is not exempt from the financial accounting required in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
3. suggest something like the following requirement:

"Any DoD component, project, program, activity, contractor, etc. whose books do not receive a clean audit (i.e. they pass) will receive one year to fix problems, prepare for a re-audit. Flunking the second time will result in a suspension of new funding for that program, activity, etc."

This is something most of us had to do with our first checking account in high school.

Disconnect between strategy and spending.

An honest budget debate would wedge open a long overdue conversation about American policy. What should our military be doing in today's world? Preparing for conventional conflict? For more counterinsurgency? Why is the DoD accruing so many responsibilities that should belong to the State Department? Do we need some new institutions? Will the State Department step up? Military blogs are abuzz over hybrid warfighting challenges that will require a mix of both conventional and counterinsurgency tactics. The common theme to all this insider discussion is that well-trained people are going to be more important for our national security than machines or fancy technology.

We're going to have to realign spending priorities to achieve this. Even with that, its going to be expensive (diplomats, translators, technical assistants, an Army that can prevent genocide).
And its not like the military itself hasn't tried to change the policy terrain. The "Long War" which was part of the Global War on Terror -- implied a universal battlespace. For the past 8 years, this could have been a way to justify changes to military priorities and budgets. (to recognize the limits of military force, for example, and plan accordingly) But instead of shocking us all into a new dimension of warfare,with ascendant diplomacy, intelligence and economic policy -- it muzzled debate, scared dissenters and lost friends. The USA went from being the world's deal maker to its biggest rule breaker.

When it comes to defense spending, Congress doesn't even seem to be paying attention to the relationship between the weapons and the forces we buy and the foreign policy and national security goals we are trying to achieve. Despite valiant attempts by individual Members -- there are still no venues inside Capitol Hill that bring together a comprehensive viewpoint (i.e. joint hearings with foreign affairs and defense, a special committee that can consider holistic themes). The broken acquisition process which shovels money into the blast furnace of defense contractors just makes this strategic blindness worse.

Note to congressional leadership: one way to get your vision back is to open up the rules and encourage a real defense budget debate. The last vigorous and open discussion on this budget happened in the 1980s -- and hundreds of amendments were allowed. The more Members are encouraged to put it all out there, the more comprehensive our security policy will be, the safer the American people will be. And that's the point, right?

Complicated and costly weapons have created a public-private bureaucracy that not only confounds our military establishment -- it actually prevents us from building an effective fighting force. Where Congress is concerned, it creates a perverse incentive: strive for the biggest budget irrespective of whether or not it meets a strategy goal. This defense worldview is so rationalized that just this morning I heard another ad on NPR -- paid for by the aerospace industry -- shilling its weapons as a jobs program. And last month, in a feat of shameless ideological skinny dipping -- the Wall Street Journal jumped into this nonsense with an article suggesting defense spending is a fine economic stimulus.

The administration is "committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world." Let's hope this starts on Capitol Hill tomorrow.

Comments

[gde]

I recently skimmed over a recent copy of the US aerospace trade magazine, Aviation Week & Space Technology. All the expensive weapons procurement programs were not for defense of the USA; they were for offense.

What is the difference between a US soldier(/m­arine/airm­an/sailor) and a Mob hit man? The latter knows killing innocent bystanders is bad for his business; the former knows it is good for his.

[Zenith1959]

Even though America has elected a bunch of "liberals" in the last two elections, I just can't see the defense budget ever being cut. I truly can't understand why we still have troops in Europe and Japan, why can't they defend themselves? And when you truly think about it, is it really possible for Russia or China to "Take over' the US?

[KHAAANNN]

China doesn't have to "Take us over" they already OWN us.
China holds enough bonds to call in the entire us GDP and and destroy the US economy (and the Western democracies as a whole) but they can't anymore.
They need our consumers as much as we need their venture capital.
That is the beauty of Capitalism, it engenders "Enlightened Self Interest" over political/religious dogma.
On the other hand, it can also lead directly to Fascism if you don't remain vigilant.

[nativist]

What our leaders overlook is this one salient fact. We can't afforda 7BN a year military. We are borrowing enormous sums to perpetuate a myth. Domestically, we're in terrible trouble and it's time for major change.

It's time to end ALL overseas military adventures. Close up every base in every foreign country, leave Iraq and Afganistan now, mothball the fleets and focus on home and coastal defense as other first world countries do.

That would be a good start.

[sanfranciscofeet]

President Eisenhower famously warned about the "military-­industrial­" complex, a prediction that unfortunately came true. Why is it that whenever there is talk about cutting the Budget to reduce the deficit, it is always things such as entitlements that are suggested, not the defense budget. The United States spends as much on defense as the rest of the world combined; that is insanity. The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 did it with box-cutters, not nuclear weapons or an Army. The Soviet Union is no more. The need for all this spending is no more. One of the major culprits to the weakened economy is money wasted on guns instead of butter. Real Change would mean cutting the defense budget, not increasing it.

[Berettasskeeter]

Why is it insanity to provide for the protection needed? What would you cut, and how would you offset the protections provided by programs you would eliminate? Your arguments about the Soviet Union are nonsense. Russia never cut its missile programs, and uses foreign sales to fund its R&D projects. China is actively building a blue-water navy, and is working on its second aircraft carrier.
The entitlement programs you mention are unconstitutional. I would allow Medicaid, which aids people incapable of working. Everything else is the responsibility of the individual or their family. Start the cuts there!
Semper fi

[quillsinister]

Three part response:

I'm a naval officer, and I agree with cutting the defense budget. The blank check that DoD has enjoyed only spawns waste. Yes, we need to provide for the common defense, but we're hardly going to be fighting the rest of the world combined, and most of the problems we're facing right now CANNOT be solved with military action.

China has one former Soviet carrier and hasn't done much of anything with it, according to the most recent Jane's (though I've been on shore duty for the last year and admittedly not keeping up on my TACMEMOs). I haven't heard of a second, but I've been to China while serving in C7F and saw their fleet in person. We could take them, even if they had two operational carriers (and I'm still not sure that they have one yet). We would still have six times more, even after KITTY HAWK is made into paper clips. Also, we burn something on the order of five MILLION gallons of F-76 every time a CRUDES asset deploys to the Gulf, and that is disproportionate to our actual mission in the Gulf. An Aegis warship sent to the other side of the planet and consuming a vast amount of what is becoming a scare resource for no higher purpose than keeping dhows away from ABOT and KAAOT? To act as a taxi for an 18-man VBSS team? Where is the logic in that?

[quillsinister]

You want specific cuts? Kill the LCS program. If we actually need ships for a theoretical knife fight in coastal waters, we should crank out a few of the Saar 5 that we build for Israel. They're as sweet a platform as you could want for that, and we already have the infrastructure in place to make them. Heck, keep five in the Gulf at all times and rotate crews, like we do on certain other small platforms. You have your defense of ABOT and KAAOT, you have your VBSS teams, but you haven't had to buy five million gallons of gas from people who support our enemies. That's just one.

Do you know what would REALLY damage al Qaeda? Pioneering the post-fossil fuel economy. We know beyond any doubt that peak oil is a reality, and we know that America simply doesn't own the mineral resources to supply our nation's bloated consumption of oil, even if we took every last drop from under ANWR. So after we kill the LCS program, I recommend channeling that money into getting our nation off of oil. If that means hybrid electric cars, reengineering our cities to be bike friendly, encouraging less consumption of meat and a massive shift to nuclear power plants (as Dr. Lovelock has recently proposed), then so be it.

[quillsinister]

See, right now we're funding both sides in the GWOT (or rather, China is). We borrow money from China to buy oil from the Middle East, which must be defended by a massive military presence, which in turn pisses people off who then get money to blow themselves up from the people we're buying the oil from, which calls for more presence, more pissed off people, more borrowed money from China being slipped to terrorists under the table. It doesn't take an officer of the line with a political science degree (although I am one) to see that this situation is not leading anywhere good.

I would suggest you read the October 2003 Pentagon study on the geopolitical consequences of climate change, and then read the paean to the Prius with former CIA director James Woolsey. Learn to see the fnords, Devil Dog. They're out there. You might also enjoy familiarizing yourself with the work of Sun Tzu (I’m sure you’ve read him already), and Liddell Hart (who you may not have). They were proponents of using indirect—and usually nonviolent—methods to undermine your enemy’s strategy before you meet him on the field. An approach like this is pretty much our only hope of meaningful success in the GWOT, which depends far more on underlying sociopolitical currents than on killing bad guys. Cutting the fat out of our military spending and diverting it to where it might do far more good is something we should consider in this light.

[JoBangles]

In order to continue it's existence the military/i­ndustrial/­intelligen­ce apparatus must have enemies that threaten the country. When no real enemy exists, they will be created by taking sides in global conflicts that we deem to "threaten America's interest" (which is never fully explained). But, arms sales and wars are profitable for those who live by the sword.

The Pentagon is a nest of waste, fraud, and abuse and needs to be cleaned out by opening up the nest to the cleansing of sunlight. In all of government, the biggest waster of the people's money lies in the heart of the beast. Wars for fun and profits should become extinct in this administration.

[Berettasskeeter]

A very well written article! I disagree on the root causes, and have 26 years of active experience with DOD accounting. But what I want to take real exception to is the "...an Army that can prevent genocide" statement. In order to prevent genocide, one must first know it is about to take place. Then, a nation must interject its forces into a country that is not then undergoing strife, a clear violation of international and U.S. law. Then, a large enough force must be interjected to actually prevent that genocide and with orders to restrain (by whatever means necessary) the force intent on genocide. Prevention is something done before an event takes place. How will anyone justify invading a peaceful country on the assumption that genocide will take place, and then when it doesn't, who will be brought to account for invading a peaceful country with no justification??
Semper fi

[Lorelei Kelly - Huffpost Blogger]

thanks. you're right...the early warning and preventive activities needed for genocide prevention should happen far before any military is involved...and my language was not specific enough. have you seen this? http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/maro/index.php

[Berettasskeeter]

Thanks. I'll look into it when I have more leisure time, though I'm not a great fan of the Harvard School of Government, by any stretch. However, if it can be done, our military planners have the know-how that the Foggy Bottom boys do not.
Semper fi

[drayak]

As a retiree from the military, I saw some rampant waste. Before jumping to conclusions, the waste was mostly due to the Legislative Branch of our government. Here is an example: T-shirts, a company in Washington, made a t-shirt which is fire retardant. They have done everything possible to get the DOD to purchase the shirt. Can't, a Calif senator/co­ngresspers­on wants the t-shirts (not fire retardant) to be purchased from one of their constituants, so since the senator/congress person is powerful DOD buys poor quality, and dangerous t-shirts. By the way, our troops are buying the fire-retardant t-shirts on their own, service people aren't stupid (just our law makers).

DOD could tighten it's belt do away with some waste. Here's one. At Vandenberg AFB, CA. if a retired general, Medal-of -Honor recieptant, or Congress/Senator, (current or past) came they got a fruit basket. Baskets cost $100 per. How do I know, I cut the orders. The limit was 100 baskets each year. So on Jan 1, if needed order # 1 was cut on up to #99, at #99 all subsequent orders where numbered # 99. I usually hit #99 by 31 March. An overdraw of $30,000 for Vandenberg. Every other Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Gurard had the same policy. It isn't a lot of $$, but every bit helps.

[wallyone]

In order to cut federal expenditures, the new administration should look where the significant money is: the DoD. Nukes, ships, planes, fuel, PR, bands, and on and on and on and....

[Berettasskeeter]

Nope. The significant money, as you call it, is in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Our "Common Defense" is at least spelled out in the Constitution, but those are not. Let's start there. I'll even concede one, Medicaid, to start the bidding.
Semper fi

[Robert Mackey - Huffpost Blogger]

Great points all Lorelei. We spend more than most countries combined; some equipment has to be replaced over time, but at a certain point we need to tighten up the spending...

[johnsonc20]

This is precisely why we don't need a Raytheon executive running DoD as its No. 2. This is a huge, wasteful department that is grossly inefficient. It is an excellent candidate for a "change" agenda.

[dsigeorge]

The Pentagon is the ball at the end of the chain for our economy. Every billion the military-industrial complex spends or loses is another billion wasted and another billion in debt for nothing productive. There is no economic benefit derived from making and supporting wars or police actions and there can be no hope for our survival if these activities continue.
Karma is a bitch.

[Fabini]

Might it be the time for - dare I say it - Pacifism?
My God, can that radical idea rear its head again? Is the climate safe?
As a pacifist, I welcome it.

[dsigeorge]

Pacifism...I almost forgot that wonderful word. Thanks for the reminder.

[mommadona]

"1-What should our military be doing in today's world?
2-Preparing for conventional conflict?
3-For more counterinsurgency?

4-Why is the DoD accruing so many responsibilities that should belong to the State Department?

5-Do we need some new institutions?

6-Will the State Department step up?"

1-The Congress needs to state that multinational corporation interests are NOT immediately accepted as our NATIONAL interests. Corporation's ability to act under the law as INDIVIDUALS needs to be rescinded.

The Pentagon has been the private security force for these industries in far off places.

The Pentagon has been the private security force for many fundamenta­list-orien­ted NGOs...Guns for Christ.

2-"convent­ional"....­..again - a definition is needed ASAP.

3-"counter­insurgency­" - only if they are IN the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....what an oxymoron to consider when YOUR the 'occupier' of other nations.

4- WHY? See 1 above. The Pentagon is the security force for the Chamber of Commerce, Inc.D

5- No. Sooo many alphabet soupers repeating soooo many tasks. Sort them out first.

6-Yes - Hopefully - If Hill wants to look like she actually could have been POTUS. After all, her husband's DLC leadership lead US to this place by setting the stage with NAFTA/CAFT­A/renditio­ns during his administration. He broke it. She owns it.

[jhamm1]

"When it comes to defense spending, Congress doesn't even seem to be paying attention to the relationship between the weapons and the forces we buy and the foreign policy and national security goals we are trying to achieve."

Sun Tzu once stated that one of the worst hindrances to military efficiency is generated by civilians leaders who "do not understand military affairs but instruct them in accordance to their civilian administration."

[Brett1981]

When defense contractors run the show, the bigger the DoD budget, the more money they make. We need an independent panel to investigate the contracting and privatization (and all of its waste, fraud and abuse) of the Iraq War. And then we need Congress to enact some legislation to regulate contracting and prevent war-profiteering.

[andrew1]

"we need Congress to enact some legislation to regulate contracting..."

We already do. It's called the Federal Acquistion Regulations, and is largely responsible for ensuring that there is waste built in to how we select contractors. DoD incorporates a stricter set of guidelines called the DFARS, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Each service then has their own supplement, i.e., the AFARS, or Army FAR supplement.

There is an independent panel that investigates FWA, and that is the Inspector General's office in each service, each combatant command, and at the Pentagon.

If you want to work on FWA, go after the Department of Education, which can't account for 52 cents on each dollar of appropriations.

[Fabini]

A very on point article. I agree with it all, but want to add one component. We must downsize our Black Ops. The secret armies and technologies, the ones completely outside the purview of congress and in some cases, the President. These are unconstitutional and undermine our nation.

I urge folks who agree with this article to read Chalmers Johnson's three books: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. They speak truth to our national military.

Ms. Kelly, keep up the great work.

[rocketman528]

Excellent point -- the Black budget is a Black Hole. I think many pet projects get declared "Top Secret" in order to evade scrutiny...

[UberReaganite]

Purview of Congress? Are you on Crack? Wasn't GITMO "under the purview of congress"? Wasn't the deregulation and incompetent oversight of the S&L industry and financial market "under the purview of congress" ? Wasn't all of the government waste in defense spending for the past 100 years "under the purview of congress" ?

When exactly has Congress done their job concerning fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget, eliminating waste, competent oversight of contracting and DOD etc...? Well? When?

I made some comments about monkeys running the zoo, clowns running the circus, etc. I think those were right on. You HAVE oversight and have had it for 100 years, its civilian and its blind and dumb.

Black Ops running amok are they? Really? Well that resulted in what exactly? I cant seem to see where Intelligence and military activities "under the purview of congress"did ANYTHING at all like prevent 9/11, find WMD, find Bin Laden.....you know - their job.

I can clearly see however where every decision "under the purview of congress" for the past 25 years has resulted in nothing but DEBT, WASTE and SLOTH. Feel free to print up all of Congress' significant oversight accomplishments for the past 25 years in between these two brackets [ ]....

[Berettasskeeter]

Would you please cite the section of the Constitution that prohibits "black" ops? I missed it in my last reading.
Semper fi