Obama's Progressive Defense Budget

Since coming to office Gates has discussed the need for the military to move in a dramatic new direction, but action had been limited - until now. The budget laid out by Gates gives a clear indication that the Obama administration is serious about finally shedding the legacy of the Cold War and building a military that is suitable for the 21st century. In fact, this budget closely resembles what many progressives have been calling for on defense over the last few years.

First, this budget represents a clear move toward a more balanced strategy and is a dramatic departure from the strategy of "transformation" that the Bush administration blindly pushed under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld. The U.S. military after the Cold War remained heavily focused on developing its conventional forces to fight a conflict with a modern enemy that did not exist. Following 9-11, The Rumsfeld Pentagon under the catch-phrase of "transformation" was given free rein to invest in the high-tech conventional capabilities that they thought would be crucial to modern warfare. They were wrong. One of the main lessons of Iraq was that even though our conventional military capabilities were so powerful that we could destroy an enemy regime rapidly and with few troops, this still did not ensure a peaceful or stable aftermath - in fact so few troops and so much firepower severed as a handicap. Therefore it makes little sense for the military not to prepare for stability and COIN operations. Since even if our forces are called upon to undertake a conventional fight, our forces will still likely have to engage in stability and COIN operations following any successful conventional operation. Investing more in stability and COIN is therefore about making the military more balanced so that our forces can engage in the entire spectrum of operations, not just conventional operations.

Second, this budget makes the hard choices that the Bush Pentagon didn't make. Under the Rumsfeld Pentagon almost no weapons systems were cut. This was the case even though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposed a fatal blind spot in our military capabilities. This budget actually goes through and makes the hard choices and trade offs that needed to be made. For example, the Future Combat Systems, - the Army's modernization program - has been paired back dramatically. While FCS makes sense in principle, it has morphed into a monstrous program that has not been informed by the lessons of Iraq. The budget also does a lot of other good things, such as reining in government contracting and cutting back a missile defense program that has little utility.

Third, conventional programs are NOT being neglected. Conservatives will criticize the cuts in the big weapons programs, as evidence that Obama is "weak on defense." But this budget has not come with cuts in overall defense spending. Base spending on defense this year rose by more than $20 billion. What Gates and Obama are doing is shifting money away from needless programs that are either outdated, redundant, or simply not cost effective (i.e. the F-22). The budget instead increases investments in a number of conventional weapons program such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Let's be clear: the vast bulk of defense spending will remain focused on conventional priorities. And that amount of spending is massive.

Fourth, this budget is not overly focused on the "last war," There have been criticisms from conservatives (and some progressives) that this budget excessively embraces and institutionalizes the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives, like Kori Schake, who was an adviser on the McCain campaign, insist that this budget has gone too far in that direction:

Gates's emphasis on institutionalizing counterinsurgency sounds remarkably like fighting the last war, and too little effort has been directed toward redressing those vulnerabilities in U.S. military power most likely to produce losses in future wars. The United States is already reasonably good at counterinsurgency, as a result of the Iraq war, and the equipment has adapted relatively quickly despite a balky Pentagon bureaucracy...Rumsfeld denigrated the human element of warfare to focus on high-tech innovation. His successor is about to make the reverse mistake.

There are a number of problems with this. First, we are still fighting both these wars. This budget is not focused on the "last war" it is focused on the current wars. It would seem wise to maintain a focus on the wars we are actually fighting, especially since there is a possibility we may be fighting them a while. Conservatives like Schake are the ones focusing on the "last war" - namely the "Cold War." Second, Schake assumes we have figured out COIN. We have not and there are a number of capabilities that we need to improve upon. Third, this budget does not denigrate "high tech innovation," it simply does not view building high tech systems as a panacea or that these systems are worth building no matter what the cost. Finally, we are still building the weapons systems needed to maintain conventional dominance, believing otherwise is foolish.

It is worth noting that some progressives also share this fear - that by investing in COIN capabilities, we will be more inclined to engage in COIN operations in the future. This is a legitimate fear but I think it is misplaced. The military's job is to be prepared as possible for future contingencies and to improve its capabilities. This does not mean that we should be engaging in continuous COIN operations around the world - these operations are exceptionally challenging and have a very low success rate. But it is the job of political leaders to make these decisions, not the military.

This budget is an effort to move the military in a new direction that is more focused both on the wars that we are in and on the irregular contingencies that we will likely face in the future. In doing so it is a dramatically positive step in creating a more balanced force.

Comments

[Luvial]

The only thing progressive about this Pentagon budget is that it gets progressively bigger every year. The Pentagon has failed to find Bin Laden. They have failed to decrease terrorism. They have failed in 8 years to defeat a barefoot enemy in Afghanistan. They have succeeded in making Americans less safe in the world and have contributed to bankrupting our country. Obama continues to reward failure. Not to mention that Obama is not going to remove troops from Iraq in 16 months, just another campaign lie. Obama is using ferarmongering of the American people over North Korea's missile launch. In short, Obama=Bush

[hark]

"This budget is an effort to move the military in a new direction that is more focused both on the wars that we are in and on the irregular contingencies that we will likely face in the future. In doing so it is a dramatically positive step in creating a more balanced force."

You make it sound like war is a business, and that we can look forward to extending the military market share, attacking countries and peoples of all stripes, not just the commies that we'd geared up for in the past, that we're expanding our capabilities to destroy and kill and maim a wide swath of humanity and cultures that hitherto we had to leave untouched for lack of appropriate weaponry and tactics.

Here is what Eisenhower said about war at the end of the Korean conflict: http://www.cybercollege.com/letter46.htmm ) -

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children..­..

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

What a sick, sick society we have become.

[JacqueItch]

All of Eisenhower's prescience has gone unheeded.

His warning that we run the risk of bankrupting ourselves in the name of security is the one that finally has proved fatefully accurate. Chalmers Johnson and the other writers and analysts who realized that hegemony is unsupportable even with a burgeoning economy all say that when the economy atrophies, the bankruptcy is assured.
Because of the protection money.
Like a Mafia shaking down a shopkeeper every night, the Defense spending has taken away the profits, and the shop is no longer viable.

Their response to this fiscal madness??----will be another large war.
And they'll sell it just as convincingly to the deaf and blind electorate as they did the last little ones.

They're terribly good at promoting violence as a solution..­.....these militarists. It's what they do.

[indyleftist]

I have just spent the last few minutes reading your website http://www.nsnetwork.org/issues

I don't understand how you get away with calling yourself progressive. Nothing about your policy positions indicate that.
You support all of the wars we are in, including expanding Afghanistan into Pakistan
No mention of Israel anywhere on your site
The Russia/Georgia article I read was a conservative cold war piece not even acknowledging that Georgia attacked first
And obviously this article support an increase in the military budget
It takes more than making fun of Bush (in 2006) and supporting the democratic party line to be called a progressive

[indyleftist]

Just because Obama and Gates say something doesn't make it so

Obama's "defense" budget request for 2009 is bigger than Bush's budget for 2008
He is increasing military spending

[Rule Of Law]

America spends more on its Military Budget than the total of ALL other developed nations, combined!

Now Obama wants to increase the Pentagon budget by 20 billion more than even Bush spent.

Tell me again how this is a good thing?

[Pablo175]

Thank goodness for Gates.

[dansac]

Remember all the uproar when Obama wanted to keep Gates? Not once did so many of these bloggers do any reporting to see whether there might be a long-term strategy.

In fact, it's becoming a dividing line between analysts you take seriously versus those you shouldn't. Take a look:

http://strategyforprogress.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/gates-another-example-of-obama-playing-the-longer-game/

[LeLoup]

As long as Congress hold sway upon the Defense budget, I won't believe anything announced until it happens. It is too easy and politically expedient to keep doing the same BS; contractors shower money on Congress, which in turn allow these corporate asshats to be always late and over budget, even for weapons that the DOD CLEARLY STATE they do NOT need.

BTW, this is a bipartisan problem. Both Republicans and Democrats are in the tank (pun intended) when it comes to Defense. Look tough on national security while diverting taxpayer money to inflationary spending and campaign contributions that would otherwise be considered illegal.

Oh! Let's not forget the nepotism and patronage (Feinstein for instance) inherent to this military-industrial complex.

BTW, take a look at the cost per job created in the building of these big weapons programs compared to civilian equivalents at equivalent wages and benefits; another dismal failure.

[lightningbolt]

As long as corporations dominate our government through buying favors using campaign contributions, our bloated and wasteful defense budget will continue to be bloated and wasteful. What Obama is doing may be a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. We need to make private campaign contributions to elected officials illegal, so that defense contractors can stop buying favors from them, which would drastically reduce the defense budget. Most of the defense budget is clearly not there to protect us since nobody can possibly hope to attack us with conventional forces. Most of the defense budget is there to maintain defense contractors who have influence in our corrupt congress.

[conservativeisaac]

I think you all should realize that we don't live in a nice world. We still need soldiers, sailors, arimen and Marines. Although some of the big nations with real military and/or nuclear capabilities probably won't be foolish enough to attempt an attack or invasion on the US, there are plenty of rogue factions and groups that still seek to hurt our citizens, which operate from within some of those states. There are plenty of programs that won't impact our security or capabilities that can be cut, I agree, and I think that Gates wants to work with Obama (Whom I like for spending so much time with the troops) to find areas that are no longer good investments. But drastically cutting into the defense budget won't do much of anything except hurt the service members edge in combat.

[zest]

It's about time and long overdue.

[Bluesman48]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

[JHawkKC]

If as you say we spent the military budget on creating schools, hospitals, feeding the poor. That is all fine aspirations, but what would be the deterrence for our enemies to see how many nice schools and hospitals and roads and decide this would be a wonderful place to live and decide to take what we so nicely built for them. Just how many countries are going to be drooling at the prospect of an inadequately defended United States, no longer with a Super Power level military. You fail to remember that greed is a part of humanity and a rogue dictator not bound with separation of powers could easily decide to nuke half of our country and have the other half beg him to spare our lives by giving him control of the rest. Even if he was not succesful he still may attempt the feat if we show weakness. Arms are a deterrant and without the deterance you promote the crazies to think they just might be able to pull of something big and survive it. The moment we decide to throw away our nukes for a peaceful world is the moment we are threatened with extinction by the rogue nation that lied about giving up theirs.

[Beachrunner]

Two thousand jobs lost at the Marietta, Georgia, plant alone.

Maybe they can become community organizers???

[LiberTLover]

That's why they call them the hard decisions. When you know that sacrifices will have to be made by some to benifit the entire country but you make the decision anyway, even if not politically popular.

[PNAC]

I blame those lazy, greedy, overpaid autoworkers who are losing thier jobs. Oops I forgot it is those
overpaid autoworkers who also overpay the federal taxes that make those jobs in Maritta possible.

Some defense department, on 9/11, four airplanes in the air and not one was intercepted.

I worked in a steel mill with 12,000 employees, all are gone now. Boo Hoo suck it up, what did you
think was going to happen when all the good jobs were shipped overseas.

Lots of luck trying to get WalMart employees to pay more income taxes.

[TheBurdicks]

Whenever I see missle launchers, attack aircraft, naval vessels, or marching troops, I visualize groups of stone age cavemen shaking sticks and throwing rocks at each other. Have we made any progress at all? We seem to be mired in a seriously primitive mindset.
We are being sold a batch of lies as our leaders try to control us with the baseless fears they are selling. We must wake up.
This is the 21st Century. There is no military threat to any country in the developed world, and there will never again be such a threat. We are just too Interconnected.
There is no longer any need for conventional military, even a defensive force. Our brave new world needs only intelligence capability and police power. Maybe a small, highly trained, well equipped mobile national strike force akin to our big city SWAT teams, integrated with the sophisticated information gathering capability of a unified modern intelligence agency.
We are in dire financial straits. We cannot afford to continue military misadventure incompatible with 21st Century life for even a little longer. It is past time to end our wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Terror. It is past time to close our foreign military bases and bring everyone of our servicemen home. It is past time to disassemble our entire military apparatus. We can afford nothing less.

[JHawkKC]

Tell that to the Georgians that were recently invaded by Russia. They didnt just drop by for some vodka.

Yep lets just all go fishing, throw away our weapons ,who needs them in the 21st century. We should just talk it over now that we are so civilized. As a matter of fact if we are the first to do so we can lead by example and I am sure everyone will follow our example right after we have zero military to defend ourselves and of course we should take all the weapons out of the hands of the population because it would be a terrible thing if someone were to do more for themselves than our government is capable of. YOu make total sense to me.

[jhoughton1]

Yes, but they don't seem to be talking about cutting down the hugely bloated and ridiculous military budget per se. They're just going to keep taking the money that could be used for schools, health, infrastructure and simple enjoyment of life, and shuffling it to other military "necessiti­es."