Don't Shortchange Defense

In announcing his plans for making substantial cuts in Pentagon programs and budgets, Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that his intent was to "balance" the force between the requirements of persistent irregular conflict, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the need for high-tech systems.

Unfortunately, balance is not the only, nor even the primary, virtue of military forces. Overall capability and the size of military forces matter even more, as our experience of Iraq should remind us.

Indeed, U.S. forces have adapted remarkably well to their counterinsurgency missions, but they are too few to accomplish the task without excessive strain. Their problem is not a lack of "balance," but a lack of numbers.

To be fair, Gates has been given a thankless task by President Obama. The administration's budget plans--which will see defense spending fall to less than 3% of gross domestic product while domestic entitlements and debt service rise to 16% of GDP--are an inevitable formula for American military decline. Gates has artfully arranged the deck chairs, but the Obama budgets plot a Titanic-like course. We just don't know which iceberg will be fatal.

The Obama budgets plot a Titanic-like course. We just don't know which iceberg will be fatal.

Nor should we believe that defense "reforms" can bridge the gap between our strategic ends and military means. The fact is that America gets what it pays for--a lot more than we pay for--from our men and women in uniform.

In fact, past defense reforms arguably have increased costs to taxpayers and deprived U.S. forces of timely modernization. It is worth remembering that the current generation of front-line weapons, the aging legacy of the Reagan buildup of the 1980s, originally was ridiculed as gold-plated excess. In war, there is no such thing as excess capability.

The United States faces a critical choice. President Obama wants to help finance his expansive and expensive domestic program by cutting military spending. He seeks another "peace dividend" as in the 1990s — but this is hardly an era of peace. It now falls to the Congress, which has the constitutional obligation to raise, train, equip and fund America's armed forces, to preserve the military power that preserves the peace.

Thomas Donnelly is a resident fellow at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Thomas
Donnelly

What's new on AEI

AEI Election Watch 2014: What will happen and why it matters
image A nation divided by marriage
image Teaching reform
image Socialist party pushing $20 minimum wage defends $13-an-hour job listing
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 20
    MON
  • 21
    TUE
  • 22
    WED
  • 23
    THU
  • 24
    FRI
Monday, October 20, 2014 | 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Warfare beneath the waves: The undersea domain in Asia

We welcome you to join us for a panel discussion of the undersea military competition occurring in Asia and what it means for the United States and its allies.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014 | 8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
AEI Election Watch 2014: What will happen and why it matters

AEI’s Election Watch is back! Please join us for two sessions of the longest-running election program in Washington, DC. 

Wednesday, October 22, 2014 | 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
What now for the Common Core?

We welcome you to join us at AEI for a discussion of what’s next for the Common Core.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Brazil’s presidential election: Real challenges, real choices

Please join AEI for a discussion examining each candidate’s platform and prospects for victory and the impact that a possible shift toward free-market policies in Brazil might have on South America as a whole.

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.