Implications of Dod Force Reduction Plan

¶ … Defense Cuts

Implications of DoD Force Reduction Plan

Defense budget spending: The inevitable need for reductions

Cuts in the defense budget are inevitable for the Department of Defense and it must accept this fact. Given the burgeoning deficit, reductions in tax revenue, and increased need for social services (such as unemployment assistance and entitlement programs), the Department of Defense must find ways to do 'more with less.' Granted, this will be challenging, given the current demands of modern warfare, but the Department must meet this challenge rather than attempt to lobby against such legislative initiatives. The "2011 Budget Control reduce[s] Defense Department future expenditures by approximately $487 billion over the next decade... Achieving these savings is hard, but manageable. It is hard because we have to accept many changes and reductions in areas that previously were sacrosanct" (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense: 2). Ultimately, rather than a net loss, the DoD must regard these enforced cuts as an incentive to reduce waste and inefficiencies.

When contemplating necessary budget cuts, it is important to remember how the current budgetary crisis resulted. In the wake of the war in Afghanistan and the ongoing war against terrorism that ensued after September 11, 2001, defense expenditures radically increased. However, these increases in defense spending "which led to upwards of $150 billion a year over and above the base military budget" were accompanied by tax cuts (Frank 2012). To contextualize the extent of the increase: "between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defense rose from $412?billion to $699?billion, a 70% increase, which is larger than in any comparable period since the Korean War" (Zakaria 2011).

As the conflicts the U.S. has maintained on two fronts have begun to die down, there is an upsurge of support amongst the American public to slash the defense budget. According to "Harris polls since 2008 the percentage favoring defense cuts has risen from 35% to 42%. Of five areas of expenditure -- Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, and defense -- the military was only area where a majority (60%) suggested spending should be cut to reduce the deficit" (Kenny 2012). The American public clearly believes that other pressing demands require addressing and given the scarcity of funds, it is essential that the DoD prepare for inevitable decreases in its budget since members of Congress are likely to be highly receptive to their constituents' demands. The public's views are unlikely to change in upcoming months, given the shakiness of the economic recovery and the aging of the population.

The first major change must be in the way the DoD does business. Although the DoD is a government organization, a majority of its transactions to build weapons revolve around private organizations through contractors. It is essential that the DoD embark upon "more skillful contracting practices to increase competition, reduce costs, and increase buying power" (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense: 3). Streamlining staff and making more effective use of information technology must be a priority. The bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated that during both conflicts "at least one in every six dollars of U.S. spending for contracts and grants in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, or more than $30 billion, has been wasted" (Shays & Thibault 2011). This is a disservice to taxpayers on a moral level as well as highlights the need to fundamentally reform the process.

The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process is also designed to further reduce unnecessary costs by reducing expenditures on unneeded bases (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense:5). However, despite the BRAC, "the base budget steadily rose from $287 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $513 billion in fiscal year 2009, and this increase continued in President Obama's first term, reaching $530 billion in fiscal year 2012" (Frank 2012). This disjunction between the need to close underperforming bases and consolidate operations combined with escalating expenditures is likely to be remedied during the President's second term, given that he is no longer under pressure to keep bases open to satisfy political demands

The DoD is also searching for ways to 'do more with less' regarding its military operations. For example, "as we reduce air force structure, we are protecting aircraft with multi-role capabilities vs. niche capabilities. The resultant force will be capable of handling our most demanding contingency plans including homeland defense" (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense: 6). Greater flexibility and multitasking can be translated into cost savings.

While cuts always raise concerns about the DoD being able to do its job well, it is important to remember that "the cuts from today's overall defense spending levels are coming primarily from reduced war-related requirements" which are now reduced (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense:3). The military is currently aligning its operations to address critical 'hot spots,' such as the Middle East rather than focusing on a generalized wartime approach. However, this must still be balanced with the substantial presence U.S. forces have all over the world, and the need for forces to maintain the peace and protect U.S. interests.

Concerns about reducing the defense budget lie in the fact that there are critical modernization gaps in current weaponry that were not present during the previous arms reduction in the post-Cold War era (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense:2). However, 'more' is not necessarily better. The critical challenges of the U.S. military are as follows: "Plan and size forces to be able to defeat a major adversary in one theater while denying aggression elsewhere or imposing unacceptable costs" and "no longer size active forces to conduct large and protracted stability operations while retaining the expertise of a decade of war" (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense: 4).

Defense cuts will demand a fundamental shift in DoD strategy and approaches. Traditionally, during the Cold War, the mindset was that the United States needed to have enough military capabilities to fight two full-scale wars on two fronts. Reduced forces require the DoD to prioritize certain regions likely to be the subject of conflagrations over others, such as the Middle East and East Asia. "The strategic guidance places a premium on forces present or able to rapidly reposition to deter aggression and respond as needed" (Defense budget priorities and choices, 2012, Department of Defense: 8).