Congressional members will weigh in on cuts, because of the jobs side of what Gates is proposing, to name one issue. As everyone knows there’s a lot of politics in defense spending.
Winslow Wheeler weighs in, as do others over at the National Journal:
…Of course, if even a few of the Gates “cuts” are serious, a pork-crazed Congress will go nuts. The big challenge will then become making any serious decisions stick. To do so, President Obama will have to back Gates to the hilt, and both will need to be extraordinarily tough, refuse any stupid compromises (many will be proposed), and fight to the end, including – very definitely – a veto of any defense bill that turns the cuts into hash.
To win that huge fight, Gates and Obama will have make it clear to the public that the “pro-defense” position is to eliminate these high cost, low performing weapons, and inefficient defense spending (jobs-wise) is a drag on the economy. If they fail to win those points for their side, they will lose to the porkers in Congress, and the Obama administration will be a sad replay of the Clinton administration on defense issues where business as usual will predominate and our defenses will continue to shrink and age and become even less ready to fight at increasing cost.
Secretary Gates briefs the press on what he sees the military defense budget needing:
The decisions have three principal objectives:
• First, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, which, in my view represents America’s greatest strategic asset;
• Second, we must rebalance this department’s programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.
• Third, in order to do this, we must reform how and what we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement, acquisition, and contracting.[...] Our contemporary wartime needs must receive steady long-term funding and a bureaucratic constituency similar to conventional modernization programs. I intend to use the FY10 budget to begin this process.
1. First, we will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion. This will include:
• Fielding and sustaining 50 Predator-class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits by FY11 and maximizing their production. This capability, which has been in such high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be permanently funded in the base budget. It will represent a 62 percent increase in capability over the current level and 127 percent from over a year ago.
• Increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of “Task Force Odin” in Iraq.
• Initiating research and development on a number of ISR enhancements and experimental platforms optimized for today’s battlefield.2. We will also spend $500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to
field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan. Today, the primary limitation on helicopter capacity is not airframes but shortages of maintenance crews and pilots. So our focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.3. To boost global partnership capacity efforts, we will increase funding by $500 million. These initiatives include training and equipping foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations.
4. To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.
We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.5. To improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) ships from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.
6. We will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000. This will ensure that we have better-manned units ready to deploy, and help put an end to the routine use of stop loss. This step will also lower the risk of hollowing the force. [...] continued reading
Asking isn’t getting. So no matter the cuts Secretary Gates wants we’ll still see some of the programs he advises to be axed continue on. Unless, off course, Obama surprises and digs in on Gates’ recommendations, pushing Congress harder than any other president has done to date. I don’t see that happening.
Another related aspect pertains to a story running today, which draws out the importance of the Lebanon-Israeli war in ’06 in the discussion we’re having about U.S. military priorities and spending today.
Interesting, so you don’t think Obama will push.
Too bad, his recommendations sound sensible to me.
someone explain to me why having something in the base budget versus in the supplementary appropriations matters. In this context I’m assuming it means stability, predictability, continuity etc, as opposed to having to beg for money every so often. Did I answer my own question?
Yes.
I doubt Obama will push, which is too bad. There needs to be change in how the DoD does business. There is only so much money, and they get far too much of it right now.
In case anyone else was wondering what a Joint High Speed Vessel might be, it’s a big honkin’ catamaran that’s supposed to be able to offload quickly in ports of underdeveloped countries. If we’re going to continue the kinds of campaigns we’ve been involved in lately, there’s a definite need for such vessels.
Hey Cujo359. “A big honkin’ catamaran” is the official term, by the way.
On another note, if you want some light reading, ““Tactics in Counterinsurgency” is back online. It’s a “big honkin’” file, but here it is:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-24-2.pdf
Secrecy News has the story on why it was taken down in the first place.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/04/tactics_coin.html
Cujo359 says:
06 April 2009 at 4:24 pm
In case anyone else was wondering what a Joint High Speed Vessel might be, it’s a big honkin’ catamaran
_____
I’ll take a two seater with a stick shift.
Interesting, I thought the LCS were SWATH ships, but they are actually trimarans.
Joe Biden on with John and Joe Morgan at the Yankee game. I love it. Biden must have used the word “Hell” a dozen times – talking about his young baseball years. *L*
OT
Hardball is going to cover the rightwing and the rise in gun violence, in a few minutes
OT
My mother, who lives in a swing state and voted for Obama, just asked me how she can switch her party affiliation from republican to democrat.
My brother and I are both dems, but she’s been on the darkside for as long as I can remember.
She recently retired and got cable and only watches MSNBC.
P.S. The Ed Show tonight at 9pm / 6pm depending on your coast. Yes, I know, there are states in the middle.
new thread…
Taylor Marsh says:
06 April 2009 at 4:28 pm
Looks kinda like they don’t know why it was taken down. My guess is that someone somewhere demanded a review after the first WaPo article on the FM.
I downloaded the FM, and, being impatient, skipped right to the back to find out how it ends. Appendix C is an interesting distillations of lessons, many of which I suspect Vietnam vets will find familiar. For me the classic line was:
If only Donald Rumsfeld had been able to read this manual …