“Further budget cuts will erode our security and put the country back on a path leading to another ill-equipped and ill-prepared military — as in 2001. It was unacceptable then, and it’s unacceptable now.” 

In a Washington Post op-ed published Sunday, former Navy Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England warned that further cuts to defense would dangerously erode military readiness. England recounted how years of budget cuts left the military ill-equipped and ill-prepared for war just months before the 9/11 attacks. 

“The Navy did not have enough funding to steam ships or to fly airplanes for the rest of the fiscal year. Submarines were being deployed with many of their cruise-missile tubes empty. Warships could not deploy until test and repair equipment was transferred from ships returning to port. The Navy’s deferred maintenance account was billions of dollars in the red. Sailor and Marine Corps housing and bases were, literally, a mess. Military salaries were low, housing allowances below rental costs and medical facilities needed upgrades. 

“The Army and Air Force were in similar straits. Ammunition stocks were dismally low and precision weapons a luxury. The peace dividends of the 1990s had left the military ill-equipped and ill-prepared for conflict — hardly a situation to be repeated in today’s uncertain and troublesome world. And hardly a way to treat our valiant warriors and their families.”

After a supplemental was passed in 2001 to address some of these startling deficiencies, the defense budget was $423 billion adjusted for inflation. The Pentagon is requesting $525 billion for FY2013. 

“Yes, that $102 billion delta is still a lot of money, but military salaries and benefits have increased almost 90 percent during this interval — roughly 30 percent more than inflation — and now consume a third of the budget. Of course, the 2001 readiness supplemental didn’t fix any of the underlying problems. The poor state of military readiness resulted from years of budget cuts, and it took years of budget increases after 2001 to undo the short-sightedness of the 1990s.” 

Now our military is tasked with confronting a wide array of uniquely complex threats around the world. That will take the kind of money added since 2001. As England concludes:  

“The base defense budget, somewhat over 3 percent of our gross domestic product, isn’t the problem and can’t be the solution.”

 

Washington Post Opinion Editorial

By Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

After no hearings and no input from Congress, President Obama unveiled a new strategy last week that unilaterally changed long-standing bipartisan defense policy. As he spoke, flanked by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a host of military brass, some of the president’s language may have sounded familiar.

A year ago Britain, our predecessor superpower, announced sweeping defense cuts that have reduced its military to a shadow of its former capability.

I do not seek to criticize our British friends, a critical ally; they are working hard to do what’s best for their citizens. But it is instructive to listen to the way British leaders sold their military reductions to citizens. When it came time to make significant defense cuts, downsizing that can only accurately be described as immense, London salved the wound with such efficacy that it was plagiarized by the Obama administration.

The British Strategic Defense and Security Review cut the Royal Air Force’s fighter force to around 200 planes. Forty percent of the British army’s tanks are being put in storage. The Royal Navy combat fleet has been whittled down to about the same size as the task force formed for the Falklands War with Argentina 30 years ago. The joke goes that today’s Royal Navy has more admirals than warships.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s justification for the broad reductions was “this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in postwar history; it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead.”

In unveiling the review, Cameron said that, despite the reductions, Britain would continue to provide “the most professional and flexible modern forces in the world,” vigilant against “all possible threats.” A year later, President Obama said our armed forces would be “agile, flexible, and ready for a full range of contingencies and operations.”

Both emphasized balance between domestic and defense spending. The British said that bringing the “defense budget back to balance is a vital part of how we tackle the deficit and protect this country’s national security.” Obama said that “it’s time to restore that balance” among national programs.

Both made attempts to justify additional risk incurred by reducing forces by retaining the capacity to reverse defense spending cuts. Cameron pledged that Britain would be able to “regenerate” capabilities gutted in the cutbacks. Obama’s review promised “reversibility” to mitigate “shocks or evolutions.”

Both strategic reviews emphasized capabilities that would be retained but were light on what capabilities would be lost. Both advocated the theory that national interests could be advanced through a drastically reduced military, yet neither explained how that works operationally.

I am not interested in questioning British strategy, but I have no qualms about critiquing our president’s claim that massive defense cuts somehow bring balance to our national programs. Defense counts for less than 20 percent of the federal budget but totals more than 50 percent of our deficit-reduction efforts, while domestic spending has exploded. No one is discussing lighter or more agile entitlement programs.

A smaller force may sound synonymous with greater flexibility and agility. But realistically, downgrading our force will only harm our ability to respond to unforeseen crises. Does having fewer Navy warships increase our flexibility to respond in multiple theaters? Does having fewer Air Force transport aircraft grant us greater agility to respond to an unforeseen contingency, such as last year’s earthquake in Japan or operations over Libya?

Advocates often claim that a smaller military is a “smarter” military. This is fallacious. A smarter military is a force tailored to threats — one that provides an unmistakable advantage over any potential enemy. Going to war with a smaller, “smarter” military led to devastating casualties at the beginning of World War II, in Korea and in Vietnam. Few would argue that a massive troop drawdown in the middle of a war is a smarter strategy or advances our national interest in any meaningful way.

A “flexible,” “agile” military resembles the force we had in 1991, when we deployed half a million troops to the Persian Gulf and decimated the world’s fourth-largest army with minimal casualties, all while we maintained our guard against a dying, but potent, Soviet Union. It is difficult to conceive how hollowing that force would have promoted balance, enhanced flexibility or qualified as a “smarter” strategy.

The British have a unique security strategy and equally unique fiscal challenges. They are meeting those challenges their own way. Separately, one of the great responsibilities of the American presidency is to maintain a stable global order. Our prosperity hinges on open sea lanes, an accessible Internet and open use of satellites and space. The president’s new defense strategy could end up damaging the sentry that keeps those realms secure.

Washington – Armed Services Committee Members Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Tim Griffin (R-AR) each firmly clarified and dismissed myths and misinformation about the National Defense Authorization Act and the detainee provisions in the conference report. Griffin's radio segment and Thornberry's thorough blog post on the matter are both included below:

"Griffin clears up the myths and misinformation of detainee language in the NDAA"
>>Listen to the Radio Interview 

"Read it before you believe it: misinformation on detainment authority in Defense Bill"
>>Thornberry Congressional Blog  (full text below)

Rep. Mac Thornberry
December 15, 2011

There has been a fair amount of inaccurate information and misunderstanding about the final version of the Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA), which passed the House yesterday.  The bill provides pay and benefits for our troops, buys the weapons and equipment they need, and funds research to help meet future threats.  It is an important bill to pass because it helps carry out the first job of the federal government – our national defense.

There are some misunderstandings related to two provisions involving the detention of Al Qaeda terrorists.  Over the past decade, the United States has detained members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups when they have been captured on the battlefield.  In fact, some were released and had to be recaptured or killed because they went back to killing American soldiers.   Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have detained those individuals who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and the courts have affirmed the ability to do so under the U.S. Constitution.  But, the specific authorization for detention was inferred from the Authorization to Use Military Force; it was not explicitly stated in statute.

The NDAA explicitly states that authority in statute, on the exact same terms as the courts have recognized it with one exception.  The bill adds explicit protections for American citizens – even American citizens who have joined Al Qaeda to take up arms against the United States.

Some people have argued that these provisions allow a President to detain American citizens within the United States indefinitely if he brands them a terrorist.  That is not true.

Here are two specific provisions from the bill.  Read them yourself.

 SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)

• (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section

    shall be construed to affect existing law or

    authorities relating to the detention of

    United States citizens, lawful resident aliens

    of the United States, or any other persons

    who are captured or arrested in the United

    States.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

• (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS

    AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement

    to detain a person in military custody

    under this section does not extend to citizens

    of the United States.

If words have meaning, that is about as clear as English can get.

Some of the misunderstanding arose because there have been several versions of the bill language and previous versions did not have all of the protections that were in the final bill.  Other misunderstanding came because some groups do not agree with current law.  Some of them believe that all Al Qaeda terrorists should have the full constitutional rights of an American citizen, including the right to consult a lawyer, even on the battlefield.

Those debates will continue.  But the purpose of this bill was to put into statute the current legal standard agreed upon by two administrations and the courts.

I’m afraid that some well-intentioned people have been agitated for reasons that just don’t exist.

That does not mean that Congress should not continue to examine this issue.  There may be legislative improvements that need to be made.  We must protect Americans from Al Qaeda and other terrorists and at the same time protect our individual rights and liberties under the Constitution.  We can do both.

 ###  

The Hill confirmed yesterday what Armed Services Committee Republicans have been warning about for months: The cost of the first wave of Budget Control Act defense cuts is more expensive than anticipated.

In "The Pentagon’s ever-growing budget-cut estimate now at $492 billion," John T. Bennett reports:

• ..."Weeks after Congress passed the debt-reduction law, Defense Department officials said the actual effect of the $350 billion in national defense cuts it mandated would be a $460 billion cut over a decade.
  
  "Then, on Nov. 22, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) revealed the effect would be even more harsh on the Pentagon budget.
  
  "'I’m told it’s now $489 billion,' the chairman said in a primetime CNN interview.
  
  "A U.S. official, that same evening, confirmed the $489 billion figure in an email to The Hill.
  
  "Fast-forward to Friday, and the figure continued to swell.
  
  "The expected cut likely will total $492 billion over a decade, David Berteau, a defense analyst and former Pentagon official who still has ties to the five-sided building, said Friday."