Defense Budget '09: Still Fighting the Soviets, or Preventing Genocide?

Mumbai. Pirates. Civilian protection. This is what national security looks like today. What will happen with the defense budget in 2009 and beyond is a parlor game for DC wonks at the moment. Still, it is important for everyone who pays taxes to take note of any national security conversation--because it will determine the limits of change for the incoming administration. Keep in mind that the defense share of the federal budget is approximately 23% (that's when all entitlements are included) and approximately 54% of discretionary spending (that's the money available each year). These figures do not include war spending. And it does include plenty of permanent earmarks like missile defense and nuclear weapons -- that weigh us down in the past, looking for an enemy that disappeared last century. Further, there hasn't been a bona fide defense budget show down in Congress since the 1980s (former Armed Services Chair Ron Dellums convened ad-hoc reform hearings when he led the committee. That's how hard it is to be innovative in the regular congressional defense budget process).

America has not had a real security strategy since the end of "containment" and the Cold War in 1991. Soon, we must have a long overdue and unavoidable discussion among elected leaders that determines a new mission statement for our country. The gloves haven't come off, but they are being thrown down: by the defense industry, by Defense Secretary Gates and organizations left, center and right. Certainly, Obama's people are taking note of this alignment and who will either resist or welcome change. Is there a way to make sure Americans feel like they made the right choice in Commander in Chief but also pursue dramatic shifts in policy? And on Capitol Hill: will a dream coalition of fiscal conservatives and progressives redefine what it means to be strong on defense? Here's a look at the landscape:

Today, a great deal of consensus exists about the need for National Security Reform --specifically about the need to either reign in or reallocate the defense budget. Today, the nonpartisan Center for National Policy called for a two year strategic pause on new weapons spending. For a really strong draught of change, see the ideas of the dragon-slaying authors of America's Defense Meltdown. Each chapter contains extensive criticism, along with many recommendations. The bottom line: it is our legislature's unwillingness to put our nation before selfish economic interests that makes our forces smaller, older and less ready to fight, all at dramatically increasing cost.

Last month, a Defense Advisory Board warned that weapons procurement spending is not sustainable. And, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- long an evangelist for boosting the capabilities of the other agencies, just wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs about preparing for new threats, pointing out the "baroque" weapons systems we continue to fund and stressing the need to rebalance civil-military responsibilities. "Balance" is pretty strong language for a Sec Def, mind you. So I'll just go ahead and say it bluntly: if Congress keeps funding our national security apparatus like it does today, we might as well just shoot ourselves and get it over with. We have to do something about our current situation. We're spending more and more on defense and purchasing less and less security for it.

Some other voices in the echo chamber:

The Cold War Nostalgia crowd: This coalition of pundits has even persuaded some in uniform to advocate a 4% of GDP "floor" for defense spending. The idea is just silly. The Defense Department can't even conduct an audit. It doesn't know how much of itself it has outsourced to private entities. It uses bad information to make decisions. The irony is that this 4% transfer payment is being shilled by the same folks at the conservative Heritage Foundation who hate entitlement spending. The whole idea reminds me of talking to my toddler and I ask "why" and he says "because." Because is not a strategy. Defense spending should be based on priorities, risk assessment, solid data, ends and means. Not a random percentage figure.

The set up: DoD has put forward that it will need $450 billion more over the next five years -- money that is not presently accounted for in the defense plan. In doing this, the DoD plugged in the third rail of public discourse on defense. It will make it harder for Obama to make any bold moves knowing that he'll get zapped. Congress will therefore need to take up the challenge, start the conversation and absorb the initial risks. Add to this the rationale of defense spending as a jobs program. Now that it has completely abandoned any desire to be strategically relevant some parts of the defense industry are pitching themselves just as jobs providers. What we actually might need is beside the point.

The Lefty Chorus: This crowd may be right on priorities, but its rhetoric still looks backward for inspiration. There is no more "guns vs. butter." The Army is building the schools for girls and fighting wars. Somehow Congress didn't have the all-important debate about who should do what in the 1990s, when the Army and Marines became the one-stop-shopping place for foreign policy. A much more effective strategy for the Left will be to make tradeoffs within the defense budget this year and not try to shift money around between domestic and defense spending. Take on missile defense and the F-22, but at the same time, stand up for military families, genocide prevention, body armor, Foreign Area Officers. Take on the imbalance in our policy that hands the military far too much responsibility. This is a great opportunity for the Left to gain much needed legitimacy in this debate. Don't blow the common ground that exists out there! Quit pitting the Air Force against the Department of Education. That argument doesn't work. It never has.

The military telling a new story: The military itself is moving away from high tech solutions and toward human-centered problem solving (counter-insurgency doctrine, civil support, cultural knowledge). How about those recent Navy ads on TV? They are full of humanitarian images. Indeed, the Navy refitted two assault ships last year into hospital ships (the USS Pelleau and the USS Kearsarge) --but this kind of progress will remain on the margins if there isn't a wholesale shift in strategy -- away from the focus on nation states and toward safety of people in general. Another great step forward, the Mass Atrocity Response Operations (MARO) Project -- is shared by the Army's Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute and Harvard. This project develops planning tools for responding to genocide and mass atrocity -- a move that should have the national genocide prevention crowd hollering with joy. Once an issue percolates into the planning process of the military, it has crossed a major threshold. Its' a big deal. But there's no guarantee Congress will pay attention. That will take action outside DC.

Breaking the very comforting link between defense spending and national security will be a huge psychological challenge for all of us. Yet national security is not just the military's responsibility. If we've learned anything generalizable from the soldiers and civilians coming back from Iraq, it is that most of today's threats don't have military solutions. Heck, even the New York Times uses defense spending and national security as synonyms. They are not. We have to fundamentally accept this, then new priorities will follow.

Comments

[oldgeek1]

This is from the same crowd who have the gall to point their finger at Ford, GM and Chrysler.

Just look at how much was spent just to by 1,800 MRAPS, how much has been spent on the Future Combat System and work on the YF-22, I rest my case.

[Stirner]

It is well past time to recognize that the United States is a violent and war-prone country. The "military-industrial" complex is a natural product of the collective mentality. William A. Williams, in his work EMPIRE AS A WAY OF LIFE (Oxford U. Press) presented the following data: other than declared wars there were 23 armed interventions in foreign countries between 1798-1827; 73 between 1831-1896; 40 between 1898 -1919; and 19 between 1920-1941. He does not get beyond this in counting U.S. military interventions. As our national anthem has it, "Rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air", or, in the more concise language of a recent Presidential contender, "Bomb, bomb, bomb". Time for Americans to stop waving flags and start wondering about our "heritage".

[AbrahamSadegh]

Our planet according to Dr. Jonas Salk requires "the survival of the wisest."

Are we as a nation spending our precious human and finite material resources in the wisest ways possible?

Our military budget of more than 600 billion dollars is about the same as the rest of the world combined! Why?

Russia and China's combined military budget is less than about 100 billion.

We have more than 700 bases in about 130 countries. Why?

We are the number one provider of arms in the world. Why?

Should we not for our own sake be the best of the world in every field of human endeavor including in the realms of education, healthcare, economic prosperity for all levels of the society, care for the environment, excellence of our infrastructure ¦?

Should we not be the living proof that we deserve to be called "the leader of the free world" by example and not just words?

According Lorelei:

"We must have a long overdue and unavoidable discussion among elected leaders that determines a new mission statement for our country.

"We have to do something about our current situation. We're spending more and more on defense and purchasing less and less security for it.

"Defense spending should be based on priorities, risk assessment, solid data, ends and means. Not a random percentage figure.

"If Congress keeps funding our national security apparatus like it does today, we might as well just shoot ourselves and get it over with."

[chinshihtang]

Missile defense is where to start with budget cuts. "Baroque" weapon systems next.
Iraq and Afghanistan military expenses go into the budget.

We need to beef up our foreign service and other "soft" power. Gates has said as much.

Lorelei has written a good post; in the year 2010 we start the Obama peace dividends (not butter, health). Which will be real but are not yet.

[newshawk14]

I completely agree, I'm comfortable with reasonable amounts of R & D, but don't think we
are anywhere ready to deploy a system, or have worked out the diplomatic consequences.

[newshawk14]

I first went to work in aerospace back in 1960. I left in 1965 after having come to the conclusion,
that most defense contractors considered their contracts a license to steal. With the consolidation
into fewer and fewer companies the situation has only become worse, with competition becoming
non-existent and a corrupt relation between lobbyists, congress, and former Pentagon employees.
A few times since then I've done a little consulting work for them, out of pity, but the effort is wasted.

[Rik]

Some more ideas in this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[jennined]

We spend more money on defense than every other country in the world combined. Who are we planning on fighting, everyone?

[gde]

Most of the money the US spends on Defense is spent on offense, not defense. Most of the money spent on defense is needed to counter the effects of US offense. The US would be far safer if the military budget was drastically reduced by eliminating offensive operations and reducing the ability to kill overseas without corresponding loss of its own forces.

[Berettasskeeter]

Perhaps you could tell me what you would eliminate that has absolutely no defensive uses?
Semper fi

[antirepublocrat]

It's time Americans realized that our own military is the greatest threat to the security of the American people. This is true on several levels. Your observation that our offensive operations (not to mention those of our most indispensable ally) create well-motivated enemies is just one level. A professional, volunteer army will ultimately be loyal to its leaders, not to the country or its general population. This is particularly true of paid contractors (mercenaries), which should be outlawed altogether. I'm not saying our professional army has reached the danger point in its loyalties yet, but as long as we have a large professional force, it's in our future. For much of its history, the US has had a professional army rather than conscription, but it was always quite small, little more than an officer corps. The founding fathers warned against large standing armies. In addition, we are recruiting more and more aliens to service with a promise of citizenship. Aliens to our culture will be much less reluctant to open fire on fellow Americans. The amount of money wasted on the military is also in itself a threat to our security because it makes it more difficult to spend on other things that enhance our security, including border security and police work.

[UberReaganite]

To further expound on a good thought provoking article I would like to add another side issue. The issue of world roles and responsibilities. Lets chat about the UN shall we? You know, the guys that really should be dealing with things like Genocide and unsolicited overt threats to sovereign nations like Israel.

America is paying FAR too much of the world's share in the UN budget (when we actually pay our bills that is) and what do you get? Limp, inffective, reactive and worthless approaches to the worlds diplomatic problems. Got some nice ART though didn't we? A lot of TALK. But hey, how about Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Korea, Iran, Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq. How come the UN doesn't DECISIVELY handle these problems so that nations like the US doesnt have to or so even worse, SOMETHING is actually done to prevent atrocities?

Lets stop the watse there first. Unless these mutts in the UN actually start PRODUCING RESULTS they should be completely cut off from funding and we should take a small percentage of that HUGE budget and just run our own independant American disaster relief operations. Thats what we do ANYWAY so why pay more?

Come, let us talk....

[degenerate1991]

Withdraw all US funding for the UN and leave.

[RightWingMarine]

I agree and I would go two or three steps further. Remove the US from the UN, expel the UN from American soil and end all foreign aid, the defense of other nations is not our responsibility.

[MajorKong]

Didn't you get the memo? We only like the UN when we need a rubber stamp for an Iraq invasion.

[jennined]

Well, in no small part, the UN is hamstrung by its most powerful members (i.e., the permanent Security Council members, the US, UK, Russia, France and China) pursuing their own agendas instead of working toward the common good. Of the five, the US, Russia and China are the worst offenders, and have been since the United Nations was formed. See the Iraq War if you'd like a clear example of this behavior in action.

As far as the US paying too much of the UN's budget... well, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. I definitely agree that the UN needs to be restructured--I'd like to see a much stronger UN, with more power to enforce its agenda. The US just doesn't like to cooperate when potential allies don't align with its strictly-defined ideologies (refusing to provide aid to AIDS relief groups that supply condoms, for example, despite medical evidence that doing so helps reduce the spread of AIDS--I guess Jesus wouldn't like it, though).

Ultimately, it's only so good as its members, and most of its members suck.

[ThePeacemakers]

What is the military being used for that was left out?
They're defending corporate interest around the world and, bless the soldiers, but the more money is being spent to benefit the defense contractors than them. They (defense contractors) are loyal to profit and take no oath of allegiance to the US.

The US acts like it can't do business with any type of socialist government....well, let me be clear:
It seems to be okay for some Western countries to have hints of socialism, but not the smaller more "colorful" countries. Hmmm?
They could trade with anyone, but they fear any type of success that would make people here say: THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER.

[UberReaganite]

You are true in everything you said.

We have the right kind of guy in office now and he is forming the right kind of cabinet. Not some weak, vulnerable whining cabinet with no credibility to our enemies but a strong diversified cabinet that can realign our foreign policy, try to correct all the diplomatic wrongs of the past 8 years and come up with a responsible strategic plan for the military to reduce waste, graft, and inefficiency.

We can get a smaller, better and smarter military without getting weaker. Fat people do it all the time, its called dieting, not starvation.

[BCubedReg]

Slow down everybody. I am a senior budget analyst for the defense department and I am about to submit my organization's budget for the upcoming fiscal years.

Let me tell you what we do... we look at what our directed mission is and calculate the cost to support that mission. We then submit it as a budget to congress for approval and the President for signing.

We do not direct the mission. We take orders from the President. You don't like our budget, get the President to change the mission.

[Hawka]

... or you can tighten your belts like the rest of us and make do with what the president gives you in this case. Lord knows cutting R&D for a lot of these development projects we frankly do not need at this point would go a long way to cutting costs.

[UberReaganite]

First change your name to Dovea.

In WWI we had few if any overseas bases and look how long and how many American deaths it took to get over there and get the job done but DID WE LEARN? NO! Along comes WWII, the SAME THING ! Now after over 50 years of relative peace from WORLD conflict you are trying to say the very things that led to our success are unnecessary. We have rogue soviet nations, religious crazies with nukes, South American idiots that are returning SA to the 70s with dictators and here you are saying. "Let"s just pull it all back and happy loving people will be nice, lets buy some kittens!"

We can do with cutting back but we need to stay forward deployed and take the fight to the enemy and not fight on our own streets. The only success at all for Bush is that AFTER he was caught with his pants down we took the fight to them. How? BECAUSE WE WERE THERE ALREADY! We kept it out of America for over a decade just like the military should.

Don"t oversimplify complex situations. There is room for reduction in forces and budget but stating that a successful strategy - SUCCESSFUL - like forward basing troops overseas that has proven very effective in defending this nation is WRONG, well that would be you being ignorant to documented history. Feel free to take some notes.

[ScreenName05]

I don't think people are arguing with the budget process or how decisions are made regarding the budget. Most Americans are upset about how that budget was executed, especially in the war in Iraq. Accountability has been completely lost, purchasing officers testifying before Congress tell a sorry tale of how the procurement process declined during the Bush administration. Further the huge amounts of cash that went to Iraq with no accounting at all should never be repeated. Finally, I am personally worried about the privatization of military functions, including: procurement; medical services, and security. The cost of these areas has skyrocketed since outsourcing started under Bush. Services to the troops has deteriorated dramatically, and there appears no one has any control over contractors and their expenditures for the military. We should reverse privatization immediately. These areas are not done better or more efficiently by private industry, and they represent an ongoing rape of the American tax payer. .

[Givethemhellharry]

There are several reasons to radically change from the unbridled spending on the military.

The first is we need to spend the money on rebuilding America. Our Roads are inadequate, our schools are pitifully behind the rest of the world and our health care system is something to be ashamed compared to any other industrialized country.

The second is that we should no longer be the world's police force. That should be turned over to an international body with each democratic country providing men and resources on an equal basis.

The third is there are to many weapons in the world, especially in the hands of two bit dictators who oppress their people, and much of the weapons and training that these despots have are gifts from our own military. It is time to bring peace to world and not more wars.

The fourth is, as we found with the Bush League, once in a while, the American people elect truly dangerous and despicable leaders. As we found over the last 8 years, to use the military to further their crazy ideas is just to big a temptation. Do we really want to take the chance of putting the country and the world through what the neocons have wrought ever again? I think not. The only way to do this is to be sure the Defense department does not ever again become the Offense department.

It is time to bring sanity to the Pentagon and not a blank check.

[ScreenName05]

The question is not can we, but should we. There are a lot of issues that need to be considered. Not the least of the issues is - can we afford to continue? Another important question is whether we or any nation has the right to interfere in another sovereign nations business? I believe that the answer to this question is no, except as part of a true international organization - the UN and NATO. The reality is that as we progress as a society we have to ask ourselves, do we know more than the people in the country with the problem? Are we sure our solution is better than the catastrophe in that country. We did not answer this question prior to attacking Iraq. Genocide is horrible, something should be done. But not by us unilaterally. If the larger group of nations cannot decide to move, then there is a reason. Clearly nothing is being done in Africa because there are conflicting interests (especially with China). However, we cannot solve problems by making things worse. A lot of the current African problems can be laid directly at the feet of Europe and long term colonization. That is not an excuse to do nothing, but it must be understood and considered before sending in troops. You just might find that the opposing parties in the troubled countries turn on the troops sent to save them because they are more afraid of going back to foreign domination then each other.

[jefegeoffe]

While the procurement process is in dire need of overhaul with its cronyism and corporate favoritism and the revolving-door policies for both military officers and congressional "overseers", we have an ever greater need to continue R & D on new conventional weapons systems. Looking at the militaries of our current friends and allies, who may at any given time in the near future become adversaries, I see modern weapons systems as advanced as our own (due to the fact we sold them the weapons). Taken alongside the resurgent development programs in Russia and the emergent development programs of (still communist, and often still belligerent) China, I feel it is poor policy to believe we can remain a significant force on the world stage and discontinue forward progress. Wishful thinking of world peace has never yet achieved it, and the threats to order seem to keep multiplying. Smart choices on military spending at home and a new look at our world-wide weapons sales policies should be a priority to any goverment both now and in the future.

[SimonOne]

"Looking at the militaries of our current friends and allies, who may at any given time in the near future become adversaries..." it's that kind of paranoid thinking that supports extravagant and unnecessary spending of the country's wealth on defending the population against imaginary enemies!

[jefegeoffe]

I think you're confusing "imaginary enemies" with friends and allies of political expediency. I wasn't referring to our NATO allies, who are generally progressive democracies and most of whom have successful arms industries of their own. Rather, I was thinking of the extravagant military support we've given to unstable nations such as Pakistan, Egypt, the Gulf states, and most dangerously, to my mind, Saudi Arabia. In an existential struggle (at least in their minds!) with fundamentalist Islamic groups, it is no great stretch to see any of these nations falling under their sway and turning our own arms against us. Paranoid?

[Garvagh]

The collective insanity of the American people, in allowing their politicians to spend as much money on weapons as the rest of the world combined, truly boggles the mind. Back in the 1080s, Bob Gates did his best to inflate the CIA estimates of the "threat" posed by the USSR, so that the American public supported insane levels of "defense" spending at a time it was clear the Soviet Union was staggering toward collapse.

The absurd "war on terror" has been a means of duping the public into believing that the squandering of trillions of tax dollars somehow serves to protect them from danger. Lawyers, lobbyists, bought politicians, complicit news media, bought retired generals and admirals, etc. etc. etc.

[Teamster]

I wasn't going to comment .

Budget It's like poker table stakes , who can tell me how much we have to spend

not what its being spent for .