Washington's paradoxical position on defense cuts

DoD/Sgt. Aaron Hostutle

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, brief the press at the Pentagon, April 10, 2013.

Article Highlights

  • The world is more uncertain than any time in recent memory

    Tweet This

  • Congress is adding harm to national security above and beyond sequestration’s consequences.

    Tweet This

  • Washington must say yes to the many hard choices in sequestration-level defense budgets

    Tweet This

This morning at the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told a small group that the world is the most uncertain and combustible he’s seen in the post-World War II era.

Not only are there more threats, but the United States lacks the predictability available in the Cold War.

Not only is the world more uncertain than any time in recent memory, but this is a defense drawdown taking place while a significant amount of US forces are still engaged in conflict.

America is also shrinking the military with a defense budget that looks little like those of the past five drawdowns. In many ways, this drawdown is unlike the others, and it is being done within a defense budget that is similarly unique.

Since this is not your grandfather’s defense budget, the same stalling tactics, old political battle lines, and tired intransigence to change and reform must be beaten back.

While there are often many solid individual reasons to oppose change in the defense budget, taken collectively, Congress is adding harm to national security above and beyond sequestration’s consequences.

The constantly-falling defense budget topline is just the first problem confronting Hagel. The next is that he is being told, in effect, to cut without cutting.

Washington’s great paradox is that many politicians see little problem cutting the defense topline but oppose all the individual defense cuts once those macro decisions become micro consequences.

When Congress says the Army and Air Force cannot reduce National Guard programs or platforms under a fixed budget, for example, they force the money to come from another military priority. When fleets of aircraft or ships cannot be retired earlier than planned due to money restraints, again the funding has to come out of hide and from within the defense budget.

By saying no to the many hard choices in sequestration-level defense budgets, Congress is effectively fencing off between one-half and two-thirds of the defense budget to absorb the reductions they helped impose.

Finally, there is the reduced buying power of each individual defense dollar in today’s budget, as outlined by CSIS’ Clark Murdock.

All in, the convergence of these three trends compounds the Pentagon’s funding challenge. Defense leaders must now look beyond bridge-building on Capitol Hill.

While it is crucially important to continue educating members on the value of sustained defense investment, the Secretary of Defense should unilaterally move forward through executive action to advance the solutions that are required to meet the defense budgets the White House and Congress have approved.

It is smart for the Pentagon to continue seeking a partner in Congress over the long-term, but the demands of the moment require direct action. As the “no’s” continue to pile up on Capitol Hill, Secretary Hagel should use the relief valves available to him in law to force change now.

Maybe, just maybe, that will mobilize a wider bloc in Congress to start thinking more strategically about the outputs of defense and what the budget actually buys America instead of throwing more sand in the gears of change.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Mackenzie
Eaglen
  • Mackenzie Eaglen has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate, and at the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff. She specializes in defense strategy, budget, military readiness and the defense industrial base. In 2010, Ms. Eaglen served as a staff member of the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission established to assess the Pentagon's major defense strategy. A prolific writer on defense related issues, she has also testified before Congress.


     


    Follow Mackenzie Eaglen on Twitter.

  • Phone: (202) 862-7183
    Email: mackenzie.eaglen@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Charles Morrison
    Phone: (202) 862-5945
    Email: charles.morrison@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.