Larry Korb, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and current senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argues at CNNMoney that our national security is at risk with the expanding deficit and the Pentagon must not be left out of the conversation about how to tighten our belts.
Opponents of Pentagon cuts argue that it's not prudent while fighting two wars, that Obama has already cut defense spending or that the Pentagon didn't cause the deficit--or a combination of all three.
However, Korb says these are the facts:
U.S. defense spending, in inflation adjusted terms, is higher than at any time since the end of World War II. Over the past decade, the U.S. share of global military spending has risen from one third to one half. The United States now spends six times as much as China, the country with the next biggest budget.
And the proposed reductions in defense spending will not affect spending for the wars, which are funded in supplemental budgets (to the tune of $150 billion in the current fiscal year). The proposed reductions apply to the base budget.
With defense as the third largest portion of the budget (23% overall), Korb suggests five ways to $1 trillion dollars from the Pentagon budget over 10 years while still keeping it 6% higher in real terms in the 2001-2010 time period.
For starters, the Pentagon should realize it's not World War II anymore.
...we need to ask why we still have 150,000 troops stationed in Europe and Asia, 65 years after the end of World War II, especially when our European allies are slashing their defense budgets to deal with their deficits.
Returning the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps to their pre-Iraq invasion levels will allow us to cut about 100,000 people at a savings of at least $15 billion a year. And reducing troops in Europe and Asia by 50,000 will yield another $10 billion a year.
And a more streamlined approach to weapons acquisition would help, too.
Included on this list would be the 573 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles the Marines want to build at a cost of $15 billion when they have not conducted an amphibious landing under fire in over 60 years. Another example: The $13 billion the Navy wants to build a new aircraft carrier, when as Gates has said, we should reduce the number of carriers from 11 to 10.
Also included would be the $238 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon is rushing into production. Its cost has doubled and it is experiencing severe technological problems. What's more, our existing fighter planes are the best in the world and unmanned aircraft are taking over more and more missions.
There are other examples: We spend $50 billion a year maintaining 1,968 strategic nuclear weapons, when an analysis by the Air War College says that 311 are more than adequate for deterrence. And the Marines spent $110 million on each V-22 tilt rotor Osprey, when in Iraq the aircraft's full mission capability fell significantly below required levels.
Read the other three in "How to cut $1 trillion from the Pentagon."
Comments