Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Project on Defense Alternatives Publication Year within 25 Years

31. Pentagon cuts in context: No reason for "doomsday" hysteria

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Cold War, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States and America

32. Continuing Resolution: Congress Goes Easy on DoD Rebalances Budget in Pentagon's Favor

Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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%.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States

33. The Pentagon and Deficit Reduction: FY-2012 Budget Retains Exceptional Level of Defense Spending

Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States

34. An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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
Political Geography:
United States

35. The President's Dilemma: Deficits, Debt, and US Defense Spending

Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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
Political Geography:
United States

36. Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward

Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
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.”
Topic:
Defense Policy and Arms Control and Proliferation
Political Geography:
United States

37. Forceful Engagement: Rethinking the Role of Military Power in US Global Policy

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
A key objective of the new administration will be to "rebalance" America's foreign and security policy "tool kit", giving greater prominence to diplomacy and other elements of "soft power". And it is easy to see why. The surge in US defense spending and military activity that began ten years ago, and then sharply accelerated after the 11 September 2001 attacks, has had disconcerting results-to say the least. But setting an effective alternative course for US policy will not be as easy to accomplish as some assume.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States

38. Re-Envisioning Defense: An Agenda for US Policy Debate and Transition

Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The United States is entering a critical period of policy transition. Beginning with the advent of the Obama administration, and continuing through the end of 2010, all of America's national security and defense planning guidance will be revised. Certainly the need for change is broadly felt by the public. And it is not difficult to understand why.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States

39. America Speaks Out: Is the United States spending too much on defense?

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
03-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
On 1-4 February 2007, the Gallup polling organization asked a representative sample of US citizens if they thought the United States was spending too little, too much, or just the right amount on defense and the military.{1} For the first time since the mid-1990s, a plurality of Americans said that the country was spending too much. The surprising result of the survey shows current public attitudes to approximate those that prevailed in March 1993, shortly after former President Bill Clinton took office. Today, 43 percent of Americans say that the country is spending “too much” on the military, while 20 percent say “too little”. In 1993, the balance of opinion was 42 percent saying “too much” and 17 percent saying too little.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Economics, and War
Political Geography:
United States and America

40. More Troops for Iraq? Time to just say "No"

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
Few outside the administration would contest that the mission's “measurables” are miserable. The progress in Iraq reconstruction has been glacial and the security situation has steadily deteriorated, despite a great expenditure of time, money, and lives. But why? Critics have variously targeted the administration's strategy, planning, priorities, and level of effort – which suggest that there might be a better way. And, indeed, the administration now claims to have discovered one.
Topic:
Defense Policy and War
Political Geography:
United States and Iraq