On Thursday, January 5th President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General Martin Dempsey briefed the press on the results of an eight-month strategy review that will guide future budget decisions. The strategic review comes at the behest of President Obama, who, in April 2011, directed senior Pentagon officials to conduct a fundamental review of America’s defense posture in order to identify options for saving roughly $487 billion over ten years relative to the President’s previous budget request. Last fall, Secretary Panetta cited $260 billion as the savings target for Fiscal Years 2013 to 2017. (Additional PDA analysis of the administration’s upcoming budget request can be found here).
Reflecting new strategic realities, the review calls for an increased focus on power projection and deterrence in the Asia Pacific region while using “innovative methods” to sustain the U.S. presence in Africa and Latin America. The review also calls for an evolving military posture in Europe that will enhance the capabilities of America’s allies. The President acknowledged that shifting priorities will require the United States to eliminate outdated Cold War-era systems as well as altering the size and composition of U.S. ground forces. Finally, the President made clear that the era of long-term nation building operations has come to a close.
Although the President and his advisors declined to cite specific policy changes during today’s press conference, unnamed Pentagon officials have hinted that reductions in planned procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; delay in development of the new Ford-class aircraft carrier; a reduction in Army and Marine Corps end strength; and a decrease in U.S. military’s presence in Europe may be forthcoming. Additional details will be revealed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, which is expected to be released later this month.
Commentary on the Strategic Guidance:
Charles Knight, co-director, Project on Defense Alternatives
National strategy must always adjust to new challenges and changing resource conditions. The first strategic priority of the United States today is to get its economic house in order. Doing this means spending less on the military in coming years. The changes announced by the President and Defense Secretary are only baby steps forward. The nation needs more and bigger steps to follow.
It is misleading to fuss about the two war construct as if it were strategic doctrine. The U.S. did not simultaneously undertake the intense fighting phases of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Its military problems in those conflicts are associated with subsequent commitments to counterinsurgency and nation building. As with World War II, the long-standing American practice is for sequential focused action in different theaters. What has been called a strategy of “win, hold, win” is simply being sensible. It means not falling for the hubris that our military can do everything, everywhere at once.
Carl Conetta, co-director, Project on Defense Alternatives
Despite all the hyperbole surrounding it, the administration’s proposal to roll back the Department of Defense budget for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 by $260 billion doesn’t amount to much of a reduction from recent spending levels – about 4 percent in real terms. The roll back does appear more significant when measured against previous spending plans, however. But that’s only because, to varying degrees, those plans aimed to continue the real growth in the Pentagon’s base budget that’s been underway since 1998.
Viewed in this light, the new strategic review has less to do with rethinking America’s actual role in the world than with revising some of the ambitions expressed in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and 2011 National Military Strategy.
Relevant Reports
· Keep Pentagon Cuts in Perspective: What the Administration Proposes is Hardly Dramatic, January 2012, by Carl Conetta
· Strategic Adjustments to Sustain the Force: A Survey of Current Proposals, October 2011, by Charles Knight
· The Pentagon’s News Mission Set: A Sustainable Choice?, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
· Going for Broke: The Budgetary Consequences of Current US Defense Strategy, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
· Pentagon Cuts in Context: No Reason for “Doomsday” Hysteria, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
Relevant Resource Pages
· The Pentagon Budget and Jobs: How Does Defense Spending Rate for Job Creation?
· A Short Tour of Pentagon Financial Mismanagement, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
PDA Reset Defense Bulletin
The Project on Defense Alternatives publishes a semi-weekly newsletter, which provides readers with the latest developments and news items pertaining to the reformulation of U.S. defense policy and budgeting. To subscribe to the PDA Reset Defense Bulletin, please click here.
Reflecting new strategic realities, the review calls for an increased focus on power projection and deterrence in the Asia Pacific region while using “innovative methods” to sustain the U.S. presence in Africa and Latin America. The review also calls for an evolving military posture in Europe that will enhance the capabilities of America’s allies. The President acknowledged that shifting priorities will require the United States to eliminate outdated Cold War-era systems as well as altering the size and composition of U.S. ground forces. Finally, the President made clear that the era of long-term nation building operations has come to a close.
Although the President and his advisors declined to cite specific policy changes during today’s press conference, unnamed Pentagon officials have hinted that reductions in planned procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; delay in development of the new Ford-class aircraft carrier; a reduction in Army and Marine Corps end strength; and a decrease in U.S. military’s presence in Europe may be forthcoming. Additional details will be revealed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, which is expected to be released later this month.
Commentary on the Strategic Guidance:
Charles Knight, co-director, Project on Defense Alternatives
National strategy must always adjust to new challenges and changing resource conditions. The first strategic priority of the United States today is to get its economic house in order. Doing this means spending less on the military in coming years. The changes announced by the President and Defense Secretary are only baby steps forward. The nation needs more and bigger steps to follow.
It is misleading to fuss about the two war construct as if it were strategic doctrine. The U.S. did not simultaneously undertake the intense fighting phases of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Its military problems in those conflicts are associated with subsequent commitments to counterinsurgency and nation building. As with World War II, the long-standing American practice is for sequential focused action in different theaters. What has been called a strategy of “win, hold, win” is simply being sensible. It means not falling for the hubris that our military can do everything, everywhere at once.
Carl Conetta, co-director, Project on Defense Alternatives
Despite all the hyperbole surrounding it, the administration’s proposal to roll back the Department of Defense budget for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 by $260 billion doesn’t amount to much of a reduction from recent spending levels – about 4 percent in real terms. The roll back does appear more significant when measured against previous spending plans, however. But that’s only because, to varying degrees, those plans aimed to continue the real growth in the Pentagon’s base budget that’s been underway since 1998.
Viewed in this light, the new strategic review has less to do with rethinking America’s actual role in the world than with revising some of the ambitions expressed in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and 2011 National Military Strategy.
Relevant Reports
· Keep Pentagon Cuts in Perspective: What the Administration Proposes is Hardly Dramatic, January 2012, by Carl Conetta
· Strategic Adjustments to Sustain the Force: A Survey of Current Proposals, October 2011, by Charles Knight
· The Pentagon’s News Mission Set: A Sustainable Choice?, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
· Going for Broke: The Budgetary Consequences of Current US Defense Strategy, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
· Pentagon Cuts in Context: No Reason for “Doomsday” Hysteria, October 2011, by Carl Conetta
Relevant Resource Pages
· The Pentagon Budget and Jobs: How Does Defense Spending Rate for Job Creation?
· A Short Tour of Pentagon Financial Mismanagement, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
PDA Reset Defense Bulletin
The Project on Defense Alternatives publishes a semi-weekly newsletter, which provides readers with the latest developments and news items pertaining to the reformulation of U.S. defense policy and budgeting. To subscribe to the PDA Reset Defense Bulletin, please click here.
