(Flashback) Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

U.S. Business & Industry Council ^ | March 14, 2003 | William R. Hawkins

[Paul Ross]

Peacetime Budgets in Wartime: The Coming Decline of the U.S. Military

By William R. Hawkins
Friday, March 14, 2003

At the February 26 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY 2004 Defense budget, chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) questioned the wisdom of further reducing America's military strength as forces mass for war in Iraq.  He noted that the proposed integration of Navy and Marine tactical aircraft squadrons would mean a cut of 497 fighter aircraft, ten percent of the force, and the disbanding of five squadrons. The planes taken out of service will be the oldest, but production of  F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, the Navy's most advanced tactical fighter, will be cut by 88 instead of being increased to bring the force back up to strength.

By 2006 the Navy will decline to 290 warships, 20 less than the minimum fleet size set in the Bush Administration's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.  The aircraft carrier USS Constellation, which is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf for action against Iraq, is slated to be decommissioned this fall. There is a new carrier under construction, the USS Ronald Reagan, but it is not expected to be ready for deployment until 2005. The Navy believes that 15 carriers are needed to fulfill its missions around the world, but if the Constellation is taken out of service, the fleet will be down to only 11.

The Navy and Marines are the first responders in a crisis. The Navy had nearly 600 ships in the mid-1980s, including 15 carriers. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has stated that 375 ships are the minimum needed to meet current threats. A 375-ship fleet would require a build-rate of 12-14 ships per year. Even simply maintaining a 300-ship fleet would require 10 new ships a year. The current plan outlined in the FY 2004 budget averages only 7.6 ships per year for the next five years (2004-2008), a clearly inadequate number.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) the ranking Democrat on the HASC recently asked the Navy for a list of "unfunded priorities" for the new budget. The reply totaled $6.5 billion. The list included keeping the Constellation and the nuclear attack submarine Jacksonville in service; upgrading Marine tactical fighters and buying six more Super Hornets for the Navy; and improving a number of amphibious warfare ships, fleet oilers and replenishment ships. But the administration is resisting any increases in the defense budge, even though the Pentagon accounts for less than 17 percent of the total FY 2004 budget of $2.2 trillion.

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

The 21st century has opened with a bang, as the reality of global geopolitics has reasserted itself, as it always does. But the trend in future procurement is also one of falling production rates. The Navy and Marines are planning to cut their purchase of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 38 percent to a total of only 680, down from an original target of 1,089 aircraft.

Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim has called the 2004 proposal a "peacetime budget." Even though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to offer supplemental requests to fund combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, the Pentagon budget does not redress the nearly 40 percent decline in conventional force levels that took place in the 1990s when the country relaxed in a false sense of peace and security. With U.S. forces stretched thin, adversaries are looking for weak points to exploit, tempted by the belief that at some point Washington will run out of ships, troops, or money with which to respond to aggression.

In his recent worldwide threat briefing, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet outlined the perilous evolution of a divided and dangerous world. Following his presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Director Tenet concluded, "We have entered a new world of proliferation....The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge." Biological warfare (BW) and chemical warfare (CW) capabilities are spreading fast as well. "Countries are more and more tightly integrating both their BW and CW production capabilities into apparently legitimate commercial infrastructures, further concealing them from scrutiny," warned Tenet.

At the end of February, 30 Russian ministries met under the leadership of the Defense Minister to initiate a new rearmament program committed to rebuilding Russia's defense industry and supplying its troops with state-of-the-art equipment. New tanks and fighters are at the top of Moscow's wish list of weapons, with mass production planned to start by 2008. And the Chinese are continuing to expand their capabilities across the board, but with a strong effort in submarines and combat aircraft.

It is against these expanding threats that defense funding must be assessed. The Pentagon says the new budget "calls for a focus on the capabilities needed to counter 21st century threats such as terrorism -- rather than on specific regional dangers or requirements." The DoD press release listed "winning the global war on terrorism" as one of three prime objectives, but the list did not mention anything about waging wars against states with WMD or meeting the threat from rising major powers. Yet, the United States is facing several emerging states with ambitions at odds with American interests. And it is states, not terrorist groups, that have the real means to upset the balance of power in a region or the world. The United States must reconstitute and expand both its military forces and the industrial base that sustains them if it is to maintain its world leadership position.

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?

---

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

---

[GOP_1900AD]

Barnett is a complete idiot and I do hope he reads this. Like all other past utopian visions, his notion of "core" purports to view the world as a frontier town and badlands surrounding it. Future war becomes as simple as taming the savages and putting in place law and order. The first mistake here is the conflate those who have technological development and wealth with those who are civilized. During the Cold War, we embargoed the uncivilized and kept them poor. Now, they have what they could not get back then. We've conned ourselves into thinking that the trappings of development and commercial economy has civilized them - it has not. We are going to be in a world of hurt. Expect the 2008 Olympics to be rather similar to the 1936 ones. Expect horrible, unthinkable things to develop in the 10 years after them, perhaps starting as early as the beginning of 2009.

[GOP_1900AD]

Here is my comment, awaiting approval, at Barnett's blog:

If another major war between great powers happens, since the DoD are buying into your ideas, we'll probably lose. We are transforming our military into a frontier town's sheriff's department. We assume all we, "the core," have to do is tame the savages. We assume that other nations who have trappings of development and technology are also "core" - and maybe even civilized. What a big mistake that is. Do not conflate superficial development and economic integration with being civilized.

It would be a real burden for you to bear. How sure are you? Are you that sure? Are you willing to bear that burden if you are wrong?

[GOP_1900AD]

Might be sort of interesting to see a few of us making some deep and insightful comments at Barnett's blog. Please keep it highbrow, but don't hold back in terms of proper debate (Paul will love this!).

A topic recently discussed right here at FR:

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003895.html#comments

His main blog page, lots of other meaty topics to weigh in on:

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

[Paul Ross]

I know Friedman isn't. Had a long chat with his old High School buddy, Dr. Ketroser last month. The Emporer is not so certain of the aptness of his glib analogies at all now-adays...even though W is demonstrably hooked on them.

[GOP_1900AD]

He's probably more likely to realize the error of his ways than Barnett is.

[cva66snipe]

The hemmorhaging continues.

People won't believe me when I say Rummy was and is one of the worst Secretary of Defense we've ever had. But it is CONGRESS who must make provisions for defense. On this both the DEM and the GOP get a F for FAILURE!!! My bookmarks show quite a few defense issues both in the Clinton years and the Bush years. Bush has us throwing away todays defenses for his pie in the sky vague promises of better systems down the road at some date. This was a Bush/Cheney ploy that did not work back then either. Speaking of which our current defense policies wreak of Cheney type bad judgment. Blaming the DEM's can't work anymore. The GOP is in charge and is failing to act like it. The GOP is acting like a bunch of Hubert Humphrey liberals.

[indthkr]

"The first mistake here is the conflate those who have technological development and wealth with those who are civilized."

Exactly. Look no further than Iran, who is combining 20th Century weapons technology (nukes) with a 12th Century Worldview. Not a good combination, particularly when they have a powerful cash-flow machine to fund it (Oil).

Barnett's vision just tells everybody what they want to hear; it sounds good because it is a cheap, Something-for-Nothing proposition. We all just have to be friendly with our neighbor-states. It's they same kind of thinking that would propose that I not buy car insurance because my friend two houses down will happily bail-me-out if I initiate a 5-car pile-up on the freeway.

Barnett's "French-Style" thinking will ultimately lead us down a path to disaster.