Building a Military for the 21st Century

Building a Military for the 21st Century

New Realities, New Priorities

By Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Juul, Laura Conley, Major Myles B. Caggins III, Sean Duggan

I was sent this insightful National Defense and Defense Spending analysis from the Center for American Progress.

Though I may or may not agree with everything noted in this run down for rebuilding our Armed Forces when we haven’t even departed Iraq and plan on escalating war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

I undenyably agree with the analysts that regardless if you were ar Pro-War or Peace voter, voted for Barack Obama or John McCain, the next administration has inherited this from the Bush Legacy even before Inaugeration Day:

• will have to contend with two wars [possibly more].
• a military readiness crisis [war worn equipment and people]
• recruitment and retention problems [military divorce rates are higher than the national average]
• mounting equipment shortages [especially the National Guard]
• an out-of-control defense acquisition process [that makes the Illinois governor’s corruption prob appear innocent by comparison].
• an economic melt down [added by Major Hanafin]
• voters demanding a Peace Divident when there is NONE to be had added

At the end of my post will be several links to detailed Defense reports, plus an interactive opportunity for you to have fun designing your own Defense Budget. However, please take it serious when you do. Put people first, our ground forces first, then weapon systems last or not at all. [Can you design a Smart Defense Budget when not having an Armed Forces is not an option?]

For best reading font, select printer-friendly version tab at right!

Robert L. Hanafin
Major, U.S.Air Force-Retired
Staff Writer, VT

Have a Great VT Day!

---

“It’s said that a nation’s budget reflects its values and its priorities”
President-elect Barack Obama, November 25, 2008

“Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no matter how capable or well-equipped, can be in only one place at one time.”
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

[In a few weeks], a new administration will have…to manage a significant realignment of U.S. defense and national security priorities. Today’s security…and budgetary realities will require the next administration to make hard decisions and difficult trade-offs on…the military and its role in implementing national security [policy]. These trade-offs will have wide-ranging consequences for the size and structure of the force, and what procurement and modernization options are [realistic].
Pentagon planners have already begun to warn the incoming administration about the choices it will have to make. The president-elect’s office has been notified that the Department of Defense, “cannot reset the current force, modernize and transform…all at the same time. Choices must be made across capabilities and within [weapon] systems…at known prices within a specific period of time.”

In order to make these important decisions, the next administration will…have to evaluate the current [real] state of the military; examine the…composition of the Defense budget; define threats, challenges, and role of the U.S. military in the 21st century.

This report is intended [among other things] to serve as a guide to the general public about what a new administration will need to do to restore American military power while reorienting the military to more effectively and efficiently counter…threats.

The Obama administration will inherit a vastly different military than the one [given] to President George W. Bush [and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] in January 2001. After nearly six years of war in Iraq and over seven in Afghanistan, the [Obama] administration will have to contend with two wars, a military readiness crisis, recruitment and retention problems, mounting equipment shortages, and an out-of-control defense acquisition process.

Yet the American military has developed a cadre of experienced, battle-tested officers and enlisted men who have been able to adapt and excel at counterinsurgency, peace and stability operations despite the personnel and equipment [shortfalls] of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last seven years. Moreover, the Army has captured the lessons learned in both theatres and institutionalized them in two Army Field Manuals 3-24, Counterinsurgency Operations, and 3-07, Stability Operations. While the Pentagon and Obama administration’s first priority must be to [rebuild] the force and restore…readiness, it must also do everything in its power to retain these high-quality military personnel. [How do you spell STOP LOSS?] As former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, the person who ended the draft and created the all-volunteer force put it, “people, not hardware must be our highest priority.” [Nixon’s Secretary of Defense did not end the Draft, the American people ended the Draft come on now! That said, yes people, not hardware should have been our highest priority, and they have not despite one percent of the populations willingness or need to volunteer. ]

A new administration will also inherit a defense budget that is increasingly out of control. Gordon Adams, the former official at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “It’s increasingly clear that Defense Department leadership has moved into a totally unconstrained view of military spending.” [Case in point is despite the excuse of a cross continental Air Force flight with nukes, Secretary of Defense Gates really canned the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff for unconstrained procurement views – Major Hanafin. Gates was of course looking sideways at the Navy, given Marine Corp dedicaton to the ground war].

It is common knowledge that DOD spending is more in inflation-adjusted dollars today than at any other time since the end of the World War II, but this fact obscures the dramatic increase in defense spending of recent years. Adding the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the fiscal year 2009 base defense budget brings that sum in real dollars to nearly twice the amount spent for defense only eight years earlier.

Soaring defense budgets have failed to create a larger, [meaning bodies] more ready force. In fact, today’s force is smaller, older, and significantly more engaged than at any time since the Vietnam War. This situation has materialized despite the fact that, over the past eight years, the services have received $770 billion in their base budgets above and beyond what they planned on receiving in 2000. [Where has all the money GONE? Before investigation the Governor of Illinois and every other governor in the 50 states for corruption – dig deep enough you’ll find it, I passionately believe it is more essential and beneficial to the American people for Congress and the next administration to investigate overall Pentagon procurement and wartime spending for irregularitie, but more so punish, really punish those responsible for wasting or pocketting money that would have given America an adequate if not larger, newer, and reasonably engaged Armed Forces instead of one Donald Rumsfled wanted us to have – Major Hanafin. In fact, the concerns of many critics of the All Volunteer Force who wanted to maintain the draft (and did in the shape of the existing Selective Service System) ] have come home to roost.]

Many defense analysts have noted, large increases in the service’s base-budget spending have made the Pentagon’s problems worse. A budget devoid of spending limits and priorities has created an environment where the services have not had to make trade offs or difficult decisions when it comes to operations and support, and acquisitions programs.

Undeterred, a number of organizations and individuals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, have begun to call on lawmakers and Pentagon leaders to permanently allocate a minimum of 4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product to the base defense budget. Under their plan, Congress would continue to allocate supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has been the practice over the last seven years, above and beyond the initial 4 percent.
[Question for Vietnam Veteran of America plus any other VSO that proposes Veterans settle for Advanced VA Funding as a best we can get deal from Congress instead of Mandatory Funding we have been fighting for so long to achieve? How come DOD feels free to demand that the Defense Budget be set at a mandatory limit of 4 percent of GDP, and Veterans must continue to make sacrifices to achieve Mandatory Funding of War? Get Real! Major Hanafin ]

OK, I’m asking too many questions now, so I’ll cut it shorter with the below links if you prefer more information on where our Defense spending and budget proposes going.
However, before I do that, here is what the Center for American Progress Defense Team proposes as a Smart Defense Budget, it may not match my list below but:

Embrace a new vision for the U.S. military. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted this. It is increasingly likely that, in this post-9/11 world, U.S. troops will more frequently be assigned to non-traditional warfare tasks, including counterinsurgency operations, rather than full-scale conventional wars. While proficiency in conventional warfare cannot be allowed to lapse, the next administration should consider the type of conflicts most likely to be encountered when allocating limited funding to procurement, training, force expansion, and other budgetary requests [especially given a national economic meltdown].

For the next four years, allow the defense budget to keep pace with inflation. [A sort of COLA for the Pentagon so to speak].

The substantial increase in defense spending during the Reagan administration, which saw DOD’s base budget increase by some 53 percent over five years, was followed by a sustained period of budget cuts of about 35 percent between 1985 and 1998. In contrast… economic constraints and the almost unprecedented size of the current budget suggest that even small increases in the baseline budget can and should be avoided in the next administration’s first term.

Include supplemental war funding in a consolidated budget. Long-term U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan require that an American military presence will be maintained in those countries for the foreseeable future, most of the cost of which should be paid for through supplemental appropriations. [This should be of interest to those of us in the Pro-Peace movement who can’t make up out minds about which war to Question or Oppose] However, the services have taken advantage of these ostensibly “emergency” war-funding bills to request money for significant non-war-related projects. DOD should in the future submit appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the baseline request in one consolidated budget. This procedure will allow lawmakers to scrutinize the items from the supplemental and force Congress and DOD leaders to make trade-offs and hard choices when considering the FY 2010-13 defense budget priorities.

Scale back purchases of weapons systems designed for conventional warfare and reorient the force based on the need for greater irregular capabilities. It is too late to make changes in the FY 2009 defense budget, but American taxpayers can save as much as $38.6 billion over the next four years by eliminating weapons systems designed to deal with threats from a bygone era—weapons and programs that are not useful in defending our country from violent extremists or the other threats we now face. [Regardless if one believes there is a War on Terror given the lack of national commitment to participating in one, this is the smartest thing recommended for a Smart Defense Budget!]

Some of the funds [and people] saved by drawing down forces in Iraq will have to be spent to support the increased [escalation of war that requires ground] troop strength in Afghanistan. The United States can save approximately $140 billion over the next two years from decreased operations in Iraq while redirecting a total of $22 billion to Afghanistan over the next two years. [$22 billion that could have gone to ensuring Mandatory Funding of the VA. In fact, nowhere in this analysis is the Total Cost of War figured nor dealt with. Depsite separate budget sources and lower priority given Veterans, WE should still be figured into the overall cost of any Defense Budget, especially during wartime!]

Continue to increase the size of U.S. ground forces without lowering standards. The Army and Marines should meet their new end-strength goals [due to our economic meltdown] without relaxing recruitment standards or retention and promotion criteria.
[This is the ultimate in hypocracy when Center for American Progress has been among the most vocal critics of the Army and Marine Corps for lower standards in order to keep our ground forces treading water]. Doing so will not be easy in the current environment. Dropping the ban on women serving in combat and repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law will enlarge the pool of potential recruits and make the challenge somewhat easier.[Time out, the nation would collapse at the very thought of women being drafted yet calmly accept young women who volunteer for combat doing so. That’s not women’s rights or equality issue, it too is an economic distinction. No differenct from drafting young women against their will for combat except the technicality of volunteering for combat, the same females from the working to middle classes will end up in combat. American society would accept repeal of Don’t Ask Dont’ Tell before we would accept Women in Combat. Even the services, especially the groung forces have issues with Women in Combat that go beyond the political, equity, or moral concerns. In balance, reality is that women in Afghanistan and Iraq are already in combat given the nature of unconventional warfare where there is no Safe or Rear Area per se.]

The current target of adding 7,000 soldiers and 5,000 marines per year should only be kept if it does not mean lowering standards; this will ensure that the Army and Marines do not deplete the quality of their force. Recruitment and retention standards should return to at least pre-Iraq standards. Congress must make sure that the overall quality of U.S. military personnel does not slide as it did in the 1970s. It is worth waiting a few extra years, if necessary, to ensure that the Army and Marines attract the men and women who possess the specialized skill sets needed for an effective 21st-century military.

Prioritize people over hardware. [This is the aspect most attractive to me, because it has never been enthusiastically embraced by Pentagon leadership from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, until now. Question is will they embrace such a notion for four years when Obama and company could be replaced by those who benefit more from weapons procurement?] Developing high-tech expensive weapons programs should never take priority over the investment, support, and development of those serving in our all-volunteer professional military. Our primary investment should always be in the men and women serving in uniform. Investing in their development—in education, training, and quality of life—is investing in the greatest weapon we have. [In fact, this is where Modern Warfare Veterans should fit in. Defense planners arrogantly accept the illusion that all volunteers will make the Armed Forces a career. That is where they place their priorities. Once a volunteer decides to no longer volunteer to assist the nation in avoiding the draft, they become Veterans and no longer a Defense problem or issue. We as Veterans are never figured into the total equation of how much war costs. That will only become realistic when the VA budget is part of the Defense budget, permanent and mandatory, with the same high quality and standards given military retirees except not the same level of retirement benefits. How come Veterans want to be recognized as part of the overall cost of War but no longer desire to be part of the Defense Establishment as such?]

Control cost growth in weapons systems.

In conclusion:

U.S. troops have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these operations have left readiness and recruiting problems in their wake. With proper management, the United States can build a military designed to win irregular wars such as those now being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it can operate with the same level of yearly funding appropriated for FY 2009. It also suggests specific budget cuts or additions to reach this goal.

The Obama administration will be faced with difficult trade-offs in deciding budget priorities and orienting the force to meet conventional and unconventional threats. These are the Budget recommendations from Center for American Progress [CFAP would be the moderate version of various ultra right-wing defense think tanks]

Ground forces recommendations (Army and Marines)

* Continue increasing the size of U.S. ground forces without lowering standards. Also, enlarge the recruiting pool by dropping the ban on women serving in ground combat units and repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
* Slow down Future Combat Systems and cut the program’s procurement, research, and design budgets by a third over the next four years.
* Move forward slowly on the Brigade Combat Team model, but carefully review the operations of the Maneuver Enhancement Brigades and determine whether more are needed.
* Maintain funding for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle at the current level, allowing for development and testing, but delay production in favor of purchasing M-ATV armored vehicles for Afghanistan.

Naval forces recommendations

* Cancel the Zumwalt-class DDG-1000 destroyer and build two Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 destroyers a year for the next four years.
* Keep SSN-774 attack submarine production steady at one per year instead of ramping up to two per year in FY 2013.
* Move forward with current plans for the Littoral Combat Ship.
* Deploy the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier but delay the construction of the CVN-79 aircraft carrier for five years.
* Cancel the LPD-26 amphibious ship and move forward with the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future).

Air forces recommendations (Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines)

* End production of the F-22 Raptor immediately at 183 planes.
* Continue development of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, but do not start full-scale production until flight tests have been completed.
* Buy F-16 Block 60 fighters, two wings of MQ-9 Reaper drones, and 69 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to make up for the anticipated gap in fighter aircraft.
* Cancel the MV-22 Osprey and substitute cheaper helicopters while continuing production of the CV-22.
* Build more C-17 cargo aircraft.
* Move forward on the KC-X.
* Substitute MQ-1C Warrior drones for Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters.
* Move forward on the new long-range bomber.

Missile defense recommendations

* Cancel unproven missile defense programs.
* Halt deployment of the ground-based missile defense system until it has proven itself in realistic operational tests.
* Continue work and testing on lower-risk missile defense systems.
* Stop deployment of the missiles and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic until the system has been adequately tested.

These recommendations would save the Department of Defense $38.6 billion over the next four years.

Read the full report (pdf)

For web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org

Robert L. Hanafin

Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.

My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.

Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.

I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.

I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.