Posted on 06/06/2016 7:09:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
The defense budget, in constant dollars, has held steady for nearly 30 years. However, our armed forces are ill-equipped for conflict. Expenditures have remained stable for decades, yet America now has 35 percent fewer combat brigades, 53 percent fewer ships and 63 percent fewer combat air squadrons. How in the world does military preparedness worsen while spending goes virtually unchanged?
The rise in spending in conjunction with a decline in capacity points to financial mismanagement and legislative abuse. Americans are witnessing a rapid acceleration in what I call defenseless debt, a paradox wherein military liabilities increase alongside a simultaneous deterioration in American security. And this disturbing trend has worsened under the Obama administration.
The Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) fund epitomizes defenseless debt. The non-discretionary, “emergency” account has essentially become an executive and Pentagon slush fund used to circumvent current spending caps established by the 2011 Budget Control Act. A Stimson Center report found that OCO money has increased significantly relative to the declining number of U.S. troops overseas, from $1 million per troop to $4.9 million. And the rather inexpensive fight against ISIS cannot account for the eye-popping jump in expenditures.
This slush fund presumably finances all the advise and assist programs, or what CNN termed “small wars,” initiated in Somalia, Libya and Yemen, among other places. But these small wars do not reflect or represent a broader, coherent plan. The same Stimson report noted multiple Pentagon officials as saying recent increases in OCO funding “are not rooted in strategy.
Increased spending not used for improving readiness means pilots and maintainers, for instance, now have to cannibalize parts from old jets to keep new ones flying; all in order to meet the demands of an administration that has now been at “war” longer than President Bush. Military officials conclude that the current approach only “generates insecurity in the Defense workforce…and creates long-term uncertainty for defense planners.”
Defenseless debt in a nutshell: spending increasing, while capability and security decrease.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration and some in Congress also funnel money into defense programs that further weaken military readiness. Biofuels companies, for example, received $16 million in defense contracts in 2014. But as naval aviator and instructor Ike Kiefer explains, using biofuels instead of oil to fuel the military would require 3.2 billion acres, “one billion more than all U.S. territory including Alaska.” Another absolutely unachievable long-term solution.
Most recently, the president issued an executive directive demanding military planners consider climate effects during operational planning. The ambiguous instruction has forced the military to expend manpower and money to find answers for problems where no desirable outcome has been put forth by the administration. The government should be championing cutting-edge, environmental solutions that better U.S. military advantage, not impair it.
But the era of defenseless debt truly climaxed with Obama’s decision to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for reasons unrelated to defense in 2016. He became the first president in history to veto a defense bill in order to secure more domestic spending. And when Congress acquiesced, both branches set the wrong precedent that the government’s constitutional duty to provide for the common defense matched their imagined duty to provide for the domestic welfare.
All of this to say, years of defenseless debt has set a precedent. And precedent equates to permanency in government. As Ronald Reagan warned years ago, government policies and programs are “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll see on this earth.”
The president and some in Congress have established a precedent for future officials to commandeer the defense budget for any and all matters. Bernie Sanders, if elected, will likely turn to defense cash once basic economics catch up with the inevitable failure of his domestic agenda. Hillary Clinton will likely do no different. Donald Trump is perhaps the only conceivable candidate of the three that might shun the pattern of defenseless debt.
In any case, this is not a call for more spending. This is a call for wise spending. Congress could consider some of the following as they debate the 2017 defense budget:
Each measure aims to replace America’s current defenseless debt strategy with one that builds an effective and cost-efficient military. It can be done.
The NCPA is proposing a viable course to achieve a fiscally responsible military that will keep America safe. Join us in this endeavor as we focus on the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act at NCPA.organd our Provide for the Common Defense Now! Petition.
fixed it.
Much of the defense budget seems to get rerouted to items not properly in their area.
Most recently, the president issued an executive directive demanding military planners consider climate effects during operational planning...
It doesn’t matter if we win in Nov. This all goes away.
If we lose, America goes away.
And America has a billion acres?!?! Shock to this city boy.
Government isn’t spending money efficiently? Shocking.
Defense creates insecurity? a nice new one to add to:
Freedom is Slavery
War is peace.
Up is down
“yet America now has 35 percent fewer combat brigades, 53 percent fewer ships and 63 percent fewer combat air squadrons...”
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the cost of an F35 compared to a P51 mustang in inflation adjusted dollars? It seems to me that maybe we have fewer items but they cost a lot more, even accounting for inflation, and they do a lot more. I thought our doctrine for a long while has been to have the highest tech rather than the greatest numbers.
I could be wrong, not my area of expertise, and I’m sure there is plenty of beaurocratic shenanigans (although those have probably been going on since the Romans figured out how to beat the Carthaginians the first time).
“No bucks, no Buck Rogers” as Caspar Weinberger said.
Disband most of the military. Return to the militia form of defense, as our founding fathers believed in.
Every able bodied American armed with at least a long gun and a side arm with at least annual practice at a range.
If you are rich, whatever you can afford. A tank, a fighter jet, a bomber. The new status symbol of the rich, CEOs, etc., would become these "toys'. No more poking along in the back seat of a corporate or private jet. You learn to fly your own F-16, F18, etc. You pay for the support crew and maintenance.
No more private yachts. You and or your corporation sponsor part or all of a destroyer, sub, aircraft carrier, etc., and ensure the crew is trained for combat.
No more limos. Your limo is a tank, a five ton truck a humvee, etc.
Involvement of all citizens in the military would virtually eliminate wars because everyone would have some skin in it.
If some entity was stupid enough to attack us, we would quickly destroy them, so it is doubtful anyone would attack us.
Our local militia used to have regular turkey shoots out in back of where the courthouse is now. They drilled (marching and firearms handling) on the common.
This was done throughout the country until after the Civil War, when we made the mistake of having a permanent standing army, providing the politicians with the ability to cause havoc using other peoples' lives as they do today.
We would then have the largest military in the world, with little tax expenditure.
The second amendment fight should go away, with almost everyone a gun owner.
Our government would be forced to behave better, both overseas and here.
I spent forty years with DoD in one capacity or another. I agree with most of what the writer says, but I think he misses an important point. He talks about defense spending in constant dollars remaining level over thirty years. But since 1991 where we went to war with a stockpile of Cold War equipment, and especially since 2008, a great deal of equipment has been worn out, destroyed, or simply abandoned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not just “billion dollar” fighter planes, but Humvees, armored vehicles of all sorts, electric generators, and every other item of equipment needed to fight a war.
Even with the drastic drawdown of personnel from Bathroom Barry’s unilateral disarmament, somewhere a budget plus-up was needed for new equipment just to replace what we lost. In my view, this county is virtually undefended. We just don’t know it yet.
Revolving door corruption. Plain and simple.
Look how well a permanent standing army worked out for the Roman Republic :-(
The only thing missing is some sort of collective responsibility for the nukes. Leave that up to the states. How many nukes do we really need, anyway?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.