President Obama's 2012 budget plan maps out a future of steady increases for the National Defense account (apart from war costs, which the budget presumes will decline). The budget sets the base or peacetime portion of national defense to rise from $551.9 billion in 2010 to $637.6 billion in 2016 - a boost of about 15.5%. This increase exceeds the expected rate of inflation by about seven-tenths of a percent per year.
The sharp rise in the Pentagon's base budget since 1998 (46% in real terms) is substantially due to strategic choice, not security requirements, per se. It reflects a refusal to set priorities as well as a move away from the traditional goals of military deterrence, containment, and defense to more ambitious ends: threat prevention, command of the commons, and the transformation of the global security environment. The geographic scope of routine US military activity also has expanded.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Debt
Today, the United States enjoys an abundance of military power, but it is a uniquely expensive asset. During the past 20 years we have sought new ways to put this asset to work. Reviewing the change in the Pentagon's mission set, several broad trends are discernible: Mission objectives have grown much more ambitious, generally. The geographic scope for intensive US military efforts has widened significantly. Across the globe, the focus of US military action and investment has become less discriminate and more sweeping or comprehensive. Missions that put US “boots on the ground” in foreign nations in either a direct action, advisory, or capacity- building role have grown much more prominent. US policy continues to emphasize multinational approaches to addressing security issues, however the trend has been for the United States to play an ever more prominent role as the convener, governor, and quartermaster of joint action.
The essential challenge in the art of strategy is how to achieve objectives within the demanding reality of resource constraints. Agile strategists must always be prepared for changing resource conditions and quickly adapt accordingly.
Recent Obama administration defense budget requests and proposals all fall within a narrow range of possible expenditures for the 2013-2023 period. All have kept the Pentagon's base budget above Cold War spending peaks. The President's 13 April proposal is no exception. It is a modest step that, at best, aims to retract future budget plans by 6.5 percent or $400 billion. The resulting average annual Pentagon base budget f or 2013-2023 would be close to today's level in real terms. The President's slice into non-security discretionary spending plans is audacious by comparison, reversing the proportionately suggested by his Fiscal Commission, and increasing the proportion of discretionary spending allocated to the Pentagon. The President's proposed new constraints on Pentagon budget growth hardly risk America's role in the world, as some contend, and by themselves do not necessitate a strategic review. Still, the President's launch of a such a review is a welcome development. It can help return America' s military posture to a reasonable and sustainable footing – provided that it elicits broad debate, solicits alternative viewpoints, and reaches beyond a $400 billion crease in the Pentagon's future budget plans.
The struggle over a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR) shows that both houses of congress are “going light” on DoD, pointing toward a discretionary budget balanced more heavily in favor of the Pentagon. Within the so-called “security basket,” International Affairs is set to be the big loser. Setting aside war costs, the Pentagon budget constitutes about 50% of discretionary spending. The Pentagon accounted for an even greater proportion of the rise in discretionary spending during the past ten years of debt accumulation. Nonetheless, both the House and Senate efforts to cut spending for FY-2011 allocate much less than 50% of the pain to DoD's base expenditures. The House allocates only 15% of its proposed cuts to DoD. The Senate, about 38%.
President Obama's 2012 budget plan maps out a future of steady increases for the National Defense account (apart from war costs, which the budget presumes will decline). The budget sets the base or peacetime portion of national defense to rise from $551.9 billion in 2010 to $637.6 billion in 2016 - a boost of about 15.5%. This increase exceeds the expected rate of inflation by about seven-tenths of a percent per year.
The Obama administration's DoD budget plans lock into place the unprecedented rise in defense spending – 90% – that began in the late-1990s, consolidating a return to Reagan-era budget levels (when corrected for inflation).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
The rise in US defense spending since 1998 has no precedent in all the years since the Korean war. It most readily compares with two earlier, but lesser spending surges: the 1958-1968 surge of 43% and the 1975-1985 surge of 57%. The post-Cold War retrenchment of the US military reached its limit in 1998 with DoD's budget settling at an ebb point of $361.5 billion (2010 USD). If we treat the 1998 budget level as a “baseline” and project it forward to 2010 (adjusting for inflation), we find that the total amount of funds that have been given to DoD above this level during the years 1999-2010 is $2.15 trillion (in 2010 dollars). This figure constitutes what we call the post-1998 spending surge. (All told, DoD budget authority for the period was $6.5 trillion in 2010 dollars).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
At a time of growing concern over federal deficits, it is essential that all elements of the federal budget be subjected to careful scrutiny. The Pentagon budget should be no exception. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in a recent speech, paraphrasing President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “The United States should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not one penny more.”