Defense budget cuts - what should Congress do?

[MattJ]

As a field grade officer in Army ILE, we often have conversations about what the future budgets of DoD, and particularly the Army, will look like. With ongoing operations throughout the world, but a huge deficit at home, what should DoD's share of the cut be (if any)? Is it worthwhile to continue expensive development programs such as GCV and JLTV? Would now be the time to take an operational pause in these programs until we have a clearer requirement?

[Fuchs]

1st step: Remind people that the U.S. was not invaded by red, yellow or brown people in 2000 and that more military spending would not have averted 9/11.
Then you may be able to discuss an inflation-adjusted year 2000 DoD budget.

That would be about $ 400 bn for DoD.

[Ken White]

Might even be able to cut it a bit. DoD is doing a lot of things that are really not it's business.

A part of that problem is caused by the arcane US budget process -- the more you 'do' and the more people you have, the more money you get. That's unwise and bigger is rarely better but it's gong to be extremely difficult to change. As I'm sure MattJ can recount, Congress does like its funding perks...

[Fuchs]

That's a fair figure.

That's because I already toned down, taking the audience into account.
$ 400 billion is a figure that's realistic without a fundamental change in expectations (something that I would advice strongly).

[kotkinjs1]

How about their job? Demand a coherent defense policy that would get us out of other people's civil wars having nothing to do with our national interests, break the DoD's stranglehold on our foreign policy goals, and stop catering to lost Central Asian/Arab causes which are sinking our own economy.

But since that won't happen any time soon, how about just slashing DoD's budget and transferring it all to State and the Peace Corps? If they won't deal with the DoD's worldwide roles and missions like responsible adults, they should at least take the easy way out and stop writing the checks for irrelevant DoD missions and wars.

If you're talking about Congress, look bigger. Simply looking at cutting specific weapons programs while we waste upwards of $10B a year in AFG on ANSF funding is putting the cart before the horse. Get a strategy, know what your worldwide interests are, and pull out of all the unnecessary rest. That'll define what programs to fund and what to build to.

[MattJ]

While I agree that we have to look at much more strategic issues to decide a grand funding scheme, I do wonder what issues big Army should take a hard look at in this fiscal environment - more on the programatic side than the strategic side. Despite the scrutiny that Congress gives our programs, it is very difficult to cancel anything due to the aggressive lobbying efforts of the defense industry. Many of our hardware development efforts have become 'jobs programs' for each state or district, and industry has been smart in linking each program with a number of jobs - also important in this economy.

[ganulv]

But since that won't happen any time soon, how about just slashing DoD's budget and transferring it all to State […] ?

I suspect that would be a more effective way to achieve U.S. national security interests. But as it entails Congressmen and Senators loosing defense contractor-related lobbyist contributions from their campaigns as well as defense contractor-related jobs from their districts I seriously doubt it will happen. Sadly.

[MattJ]

So where does the responsibility start, and who needs to start scaling back on this spending? Is it really a lobbyist's fault for for doing their job and representing industry? I don't really think it is. I think there is a shared blame on both the service that requested the budget and the Congress that approved (with earmarks added). While a Member of Congress does have a responsibility to represent their constituents, I think they also have a higher responsibility to ensure that their constituents' tax money is well spent and that their constituents in uniform have what they need. Almost every Urgent Operational Needs statement that gets submitted from theater (usually a valid request) turns into a team of Congress and Industry pushing the service to make that small program into a long term program of record. Once these programs get into the base budget, they are almost locked in forever.

I give great credit to GEN Chiarelli for taking a hard look at redundant programs and programs that aren't clearly lined up with requirements, but I think the effort needs to expand. It was good to see the Army stand firm (as of now) on their decision to not buy anymore HMMWVs - at least until they figure out the long term light tactical vehicle requirements. I think it would be helpful to see that scrutiny on a few more programs.

[Marc]

As a field grade officer in Army ILE, we often have conversations about what the future budgets of DoD, and particularly the Army, will look like. With ongoing operations throughout the world, but a huge deficit at home, what should DoD's share of the cut be (if any)? Is it worthwhile to continue expensive development programs such as GCV and JLTV? Would now be the time to take an operational pause in these programs until we have a clearer requirement?

Matt,

Members of Congress should do what they always do: keeping their constituents happy. Constituents express their happiness by (re-)electing the politicians they think will be most successful at that. Members of Congress express their willingness to keep their constituents happy by constantly adjusting their set of issue positions so as to benefit from "a daily majority" (see Dick Morris "The New Prince: Macchiavelli Updated for the Twenty First Century").

In the case of the DoD budget, this means cutting it without endangering soldiers in the field and jobs in their constituency. Combining both requirements is not always easy. Cutting the F22 program does not endanger any soldier, but it endangers 25000 jobs.

Therefore, the question is not what Members of Congress should do, but what the defence industry should do. The defence industry should make the politicians' job easy by focusing their production and their lobbying on weapon systems that matter for today's conflicts. In stead of putting their efforts in expensive development programs to win the fight on the (yet to materialize) near-peer competitor, they should focus on today's threats.

So, to answer your questions: NO, it is not worthwhile to continue expensive development programs such as GCV and JLTV. And YES, it would now be the time to take an operational pause in these programs until we have a clearer requirement. However, that initiative should not only come from Congress, but also from the lobbyists influencing its members.