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

Gates Against the Establishment

Defense: “Gates Seeks Sharp Turn in Spending,” by Greg Jaffe and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, 7 April 2009; “Military Budget Reflects a Shift in U.S. Strategy,” by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 7 April 2009; “Pentagon Pushes Weapon Cuts,” by August Cole and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2009; and “Gates: Champion of Our Troops,” by Ralph Peters, New York Post, 7 April 2009

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the first round in what will likely be an ugly battle to overhaul defense spending. Gates, to be sure, is not the first defense chief to take on the so-called iron triangle of defense contractors, lawmakers and military service executives – nor will he be the last.

However, Gates may be in a “perfect storm” which will make his battle somewhat more reasonable. The U.S. has been fighting an irregular war in Iraq for going on seven years and is ramping up irregular warfare efforts in Afghanistan, and is currently mired in an economic downturn.

There is a saying in the military that, “Troops in contact trumps everything else.” Gates is using this rationale to justify some of his cuts. The troops currently in contact are fighting irregular conflicts and have limited use for gilded high tech weapons systems. According to Gates, what they need are more troops and intelligence collecting platforms.

Additionally, as one of the results of a poor economy, President Obama has vowed to reign in defense spending. Instead of adding to the defense budget to pay for limited value high tech weapons systems for fighting a near peer opponent, Gates is targeting those programs in order to funnel funding to current irregular warfare initiatives.

Gates, in comments made yesterday, said his plan represents “one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity; to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements.”

Major Proposed Cuts

-Limit the DDG 1000 destroyer purchase to three ships

-Halt production on the F-22 fighter at 187

-Dramatically cut back on the Future Combat System

Major Proposed Adds/Saves

-Low tech tools, such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP)

-Surveillance technology, such as Predator unmanned drones

-Funding to pay for planned increase in Army and Marine personnel

Congressional Response

According to the Washington Post,

“The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates’s credibility among Republicans, the president’s popularity and the fact that midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away.”

In remarks Gates said, “My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton said Gate’s plan was “a good-faith effort,” but that “the buck stops with Congress.”

Senators Joe Lieberman and Jim Inhoffe urged in a letter “not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland…” Lieberman added that the decision to stop building F-22’s “would result in the loss of thousands of jobs…”

My Take

The pragmatic Gates strikes again. Prioritizing spending to meet the realistic enemy we are likely to be fighting…? What a blinding flash of the obvious. However, as noted in all of the referenced articles, what Gates has proposed and what he is likely to get through Congress are two different animals. The politicians will fight like crazy to keep their constituents whole. I wish they could take politics out of the equation and do what is best for the troops.

Also, see

Gates the Pragmatist

"Cutting" the DoD Budget???

Gates the Pragmatist

Defense: "Gates Plays Down Russia, China Threats," by David Morgan, Reuters, 18 March 2009

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates never ceases to amaze me with his pragmatic approach to being the defense chief. I have always thought this, but reading the above short Reuters piece just drove the point home. Since taking over the SecDef position in 2006 he is widely credited with salvaging a flawed battle plan for Iraq. With the ship somewhat righted in Iraq, it appears his focus is turning to more of a traditional defense chief role: Exerting control over the sprawling bureaucracy that is the DoD.

Granted, there are still significant challenges in Iraq, and tremendous challenges upcoming in Afghanistan, but Gates seems to be prepping for a monumental battle with defense contractors. For the past several months he's been preaching the need to prepare for the battles we are fighting today, which he seems to think will be the long term battles as well.

In this article he continues this theme by addressing the supposed China threat, and a resurgent Russia. Read some of his thoughts below:

"A day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would rearm its military and boost its nuclear forces, the U.S. defense chief said Moscow is actually moving to reduce the size of its traditional military force."

"As I read between the lines, the first message that he was giving to the Russian military was: 'Don't expect any new equipment for two years."

"Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing he also does not believe aggressive Chinese behavior against U.S. Navy surveillance vessels in the South China Sea suggests Beijing wants to force the U.S. Pacific fleet from the region."

To me, Gates' rationale on China and Russia makes sense. However, folks that have "near peer" weapons systems potentially on the chopping block are not going to agree that Gates is being very pragmatic.