Gates and the Defense Budget

DEFENSE: “Inside the War Against Robert Gates,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, 14 April 2009

Cognizant that our military might in conventional, big-war capabilities was driving all of our real-time opponents toward pronouncedly asymmetrical, small-wars strategies, Gates decided to end…the Defense Department's institutional bias against preparing for such "low-intensity" scenarios. Low intensity, he understands, has become the all-too-intense norm of modern warfare.

This is long overdue. As a knuckle dragging Marine, I have little use for gilded $140 million aircraft that do everything, when a much cheaper airplane that can do most everything is good enough. As Barnett points out, the reason we are in this position is because no near peer can stand toe-to-toe with us. The only way to slow down the U.S. military is to go unconventional – roadside bombs, snipers, hit-and-run tactics, etc.

In other words, is the Pentagon really in the business of making this world a safer place for America and its citizens? Or is it just some freewheeling job-creation scheme sponsored by the federal government and ignorant of the world's trends in global security?

This is the bazillion (not million) dollar question. The reason previous secretaries of defense have not been able to change the paradigm. However, I would argue that Gates is in the “perfect storm” to make this change. He has two unconventional wars being waged, a burgeoning Somalia pirate problem, and a crappy economy.

America hasn't fought a war against another great power since 1945, coincidentally the year we obtained and first used nuclear weapons. Since then, no two great powers armed with nukes have ever gone to war — one of the longest droughts since nation-states were invented. Since the Cold War, meanwhile, our global-security environment has witnessed a serious ratcheting-up of transnational terrorism, failed states, internal strife, and all the accompanying interventions by outside great powers and international organizations.

History does not lie. However, for some reason, those that would continue to push for over budget technology that may, or may not, eventually work always roll out the China threat. The Chinese defense budget (at least what they declare) is about $70 billion (more likely north of $100 billion). The U.S. defense budget is about $515 billion. Not too mention the current technology the U.S. has so outpaces any near peer, it would be decades before someone was able to match it.

But you ask, “What about staying ahead of the curve?”

And neither does Gates, who offers a sensible breakdown of his budget proposal as being 10 percent small wars-centric, 50 percent large wars-centric, and 40 percent dual-use. As bureaucratic tipping points go, this mix strikes me as supremely sensible — even conservative.

In actuality, the budget is not being cut, it’s just being reapportioned. Fifty percent of the budget will still go towards high tech weaponry for near peer wars. Gates’ budget plan just forces the Pentagon to be very precise with the weapon systems chosen for development.

Also see:

Gates Against the Establishment

Gates the Pragmatist