Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Pentagon Exempt from Budget Cuts?

Influential Republican Party figures are pushing back against efforts to target the Pentagon budget for cuts.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

With pressure to slash the 1.3 trillion-dollar federal deficit rising sharply, the public debate over whether to exempt the Pentagon from such cuts is moving rapidly toward centre-stage.

Two major bipartisan reports – including one commissioned by President Barack Obama — released over the past 10 days argued against such an exemption.

But powerful Republicans, whose party won control of the House of Representatives and boosted their influence in the Senate in the mid-term elections earlier this month, seem determined to oppose any cuts to the U.S. military.

But a big unknown is what will be the attitude of the several dozen Republicans identified with the "Tea Party" movement who will take their seats in the new Congress in January. While some, notably former Republican vice- presidential candidate Sarah Palin, actually favour more spending on the military, others, led by Kentucky Senator- elect Rand Paul, have insisted that defence cuts must be on the table.

Whether these new deficit hawks will form an alliance with liberal Democrats – whose influence has actually increased within the party's Congressional caucus due to the defeat of many pro-defence conservative Democratic incumbents – to force cuts in military spending promises to be one of the more-interesting questions that will play out over the coming year.

In the current year, the Pentagon's budget stands at more than 530 billion dollars, not counting an additional 182 billion dollars it has been spending on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other overseas counter-terror operations. Altogether, the U.S. military budget makes up more than 40 percent of total global military spending and roughly five times more than the country with next biggest budget, China.

Indeed, largely as a result of the Bush administration's "global war on terror," the military budget has almost doubled over the past decade. It now constitutes 55 percent of the government's discretionary spending – spending that is not a legal obligation, such as Social Security, or Medicare — and nearly 25 percent of the entire federal budget.

That makes it a tempting target for the deficit hawks.

Anticipating the coming battle, Defence Secretary Robert Gates tried to pre-empt the debate when he announced a plan to cut as much as $100 billion over the next five years from the Pentagon's budget by reforming procurement procedures, reducing the Department's reliance on private contractors, and other measures to reduce waste and inefficiencies. But those savings would be recycled within the Pentagon whose budget, in any event, should continue to grow at least one percent per year in real terms.

"My greatest fear is that in economic tough times people will see the defence budget as the place to solve the nation's deficit problems," he told reporters in August. He said it would be "disastrous (to) slash it in an effort to find some kind of dividend to the put money someplace else."

In October, however, 56 House Democrats, led by Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, and one veteran Republican, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (Rand Paul's father), published a letter to the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform – a group of greybeards convened by the White House to make recommendations for cutting the federal deficit – urging that it recommend real cuts in the Pentagon's budget.

As co-chairs of the "Sustainable Defense Task Force," the two men have argued that Washington should cut one trillion dollars from the projected defence budgets over the next decade primarily by quickly winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing down some of the more than 700 military bases Washington has spread around the globe, and eliminating expensive weapons systems of questionable utility.

Sensing trouble, three defence contractor-backed think tanks – the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Initiative and the far-right Heritage Foundation – published a joint report entitled "Defending Defense" heralded by full-page ads in major newspapers.

"The defense budget is a relatively small slice of the 14- plus trillion dollar American pie," they claimed in a reference to total US gross domestic product (GDP). "And it's a shrinking slice," the report insisted, noting that the Pentagon's budget was set to fall from 4.9 percent of GDP to 3.6 percent of GDP by 2015, "even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades."

When, however, the National Commission, which was co-chaired by Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, came out with its initial report Nov. 10, it called for defence cuts of as much as 100 billion dollars by 2015 as part of a package of proposed spending reductions covering the entire federal budget. It specifically urged canceling several key weapons systems, notably the V-35 fighter jet, the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey, and two kinds of actual and planned combat vehicles, among other cuts.

The recommendations were immediately denounced by the Republican leadership, including the likely chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, California Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, who warned that the country could not afford "cutting defence in the midst of two wars." Gates criticised the proposal as "math, not strategy."

At the same time, however, some Republicans, notably the two Pauls, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and other deficit hawks in the party, welcomed the report, arguing that it would help create space for a much-needed intra-party debate.

On Wednesday this week, another group convened by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released a second set of recommendations for reducing the federal deficit.

Co-chaired by former Sen. Pete Domenici, who served as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in the 1990's and early 2000's, and Clinton's former budget director, Alice Rivlin, the group, which included former governors, local government officials, union and business leaders and Congressional staff, called for a five-year freeze on defence spending at current levels with a possible savings of some 430 billion dollars over that period and 1.1 trillion dollars by 2020.

Echoing the National Commission's report, it called for canceling the same weapons systems and also urged reducing the number of soldiers and marines by 275,000 – or about ten percent off total active-duty personnel and reservists – as current wars wind down.

After its publication, some 46 leading national-security analysts and retired senior policy-makers, including intelligence and military officers, released their own letter to the National Commission echoing the call for sharp cuts.

"We can achieve safe savings in defense if we are willing to rethink how we produce military power and how, why, and where we put it to use," the letter, which was sponsored by the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and the Boston- based Project for Defense Alternatives.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed the limits of military power," it said, noting that the military needed to "prune" some of the missions, such as "regime change and "nation-building," that it had taken on since the end of the Cold War and "restore an emphasis on defense and deterrence."

"(F)iscal realities call on us to strike a new balance between investing in military power and attending to the fundamentals of national strength on which our true power rests," the letter asserted.

Briefing reporters about the letter, Gordon Adams, who served as the top national-security official in Clinton's budget office, said that events of the past few weeks were having a "snowball" effect on the national debate on deficit reduction.

"Despite the effort by Secretary Gates to protect real growth in the defence budget, it is simply not going to be viable either economically or politically to exempt the Department of Defense from the budget discipline that's coming," said Adams, who is currently based at the Stimson Center.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.