Those seeking further details on changes in the Pentagon budget received some satisfaction today in a briefing delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Secretary Panetta revealed that the budget, expected to be released in full detail on February 13, will contain $525 billion in base spending for fiscal 2013.  This excludes funding for the wars as well as nuclear-related activities at the Department of Energy, and represents a $6 billion decrease from the fiscal 2012 base budget approved by Congress.  Congress’ final number for fiscal 2012 was rolled back by $22 billion from the administration's original proposal in order to comply with the Budget Control Act.  

In addition, the Pentagon will request $88.4 billion in funding for the wars overseas, approximately $27 billion less than fiscal 2012 due to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Pentagon’s stated “hope and plan,” according to Secretary Panetta, is to grow the base budget (PDF) to $567 billion by fiscal 2017.  Although the budget would decrease slightly this year, 2.3 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, it would see a real increase of about a half a percent over the remainder of the next five years.

The Pentagon has taken a hard look at its priorities and scaled back some of its most pie-in-the-sky projects, but its actions have not impacted the country’s ability to fight a war.  "This budget is a first step — it's a down payment — as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," said Dempsey, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."

In fact, the Pentagon document, titled “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” notes that “Even with these reductions, the Army and Marine Corps will be larger than they were in 2001.”

If anything, the debt debate has provided the Pentagon with a long overdue opportunity to reexamine its priorities and reevaluate its strategy in light of ongoing and realistic threats.  The last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) punted on the subject, recommending that the Pentagon choose to prepare for everything short of a zombie invasion.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, Panetta, Dempsey (all tags)

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation today applauds the Pentagon’s decision to scale back Pentagon spending in a way that best provides for the strength and security of our country, but labeled the move “only a step in the right direction.”

“After an unfocused Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon has come together to provide a cohesive look at the military we will need long after the current wars come to an end,” said Laicie Olson, Senior Policy Analyst, “Further reductions, if similarly strategy-driven, could be made while fully protecting the United States from military threats."

While the full details of the plan will not be released until the Pentagon presents the Fiscal Year 2013 budget to Congress,  the President outlined their direction today, stating that “over the past ten years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace.  Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow... In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”

Olson adds that “The proposed cuts are still modest compared to drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.”

The question now is whether the Pentagon will eliminate a host of outdated and unnecessary programs that still exist.

“President Obama was right to note that our national security will be better served by getting rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future,” said Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. “To avoid excessive cuts to essential programs, the Pentagon must cut the bloated U.S. nuclear weapons budget, which is irrelevant to emerging 21st century security priorities such as terrorism, cybersecurity, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.”

The new Pentagon strategy document states, using italics for emphasis, “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

Added Reif: "Further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and scaling back planned investments in new strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities make both strategic and economic sense”

The Center anticipates the release of full budget details, and awaits a significant adjustment in both strategy and savings.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending (all tags)

House Speaker John Boehner

Late last night (about 11:40pm) House Republicans introduced a $915 billion spending bill in a power play that would keep the government in operation beyond the weekend.  The maneuver comes as a response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's attempt, in conjunction with the White House, to put off movement on nine unfinished 2012 appropriations bills until Congress has agreed upon a separate package to extend a payroll tax break and jobless benefits.  

Senate leaders fear, with good reason, that the House will simply pass its version of key measures and adjourn for the year, leaving the Senate a take-it-or-leave it choice.

The White House has asked Congress to pass a stop-gap spending bill to provide more time to work out a compromise on some controversial provisions included in the spending package, but Republicans have not indicated they would advance such a bill.

Despite some controversial provisions, however, including those on travel to Cuba, the measure is understood to be relatively close to the expected conference agreement.

"We've got an agreement between appropriators in the House and the Senate - Democrats and Republicans - on a bipartisan bill to fund our government. We believe that the responsible thing to do is to move this," said House Speaker John Boehner.

The defense bill advanced by House Republicans would provide $518.1 billion for the Pentagon base budget, an increase of $5.1 billion over fiscal year 2011 (fy11) and a reduction of $20.8 billion below the President’s request.  Senate Appropriations Committee-approved language would provide $513 billion, a number achieved largely through the shifting of funds from the base account to the war account.

In addition, the bill would provide $115.1 billion for ongoing war operations largely in Afghanistan, $2.8 billion below the President’s request and $43 billion below fy11 appropriations.  The Senate Appropriations Committee would fund the wars at $117.5 billion.

A final agreement is expected in the coming days.

Read more

Security Matters, FY12, Defense Spending (all tags)

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the debt deal and what it means for defense.  Things have gotten so complicated with the defense/non-defense security/non-security debate, that even the experts are uncertain.  

To be clear on at least the definitions, “security,” as defined in the deal, is defense and non-defense security, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Intelligence, International Affairs and the National Nuclear Security Administration.  This definition applies to the first two years of the budget deal, and its relevant spending caps, only.

For the first two years, the bill is clear on this category of spending.  For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the bill sets a $684 billion ceiling for “security.”  This number is a $4.5 billion overall decrease in security spending from the FY 2011 level of $688.5 billion.  The FY 2013 security cap is $686 billion, still tracking below FY 2011 levels.  

While the cut is not large, it is significant, since previous cuts have taken reductions from the amount of increases, rather actually reducing the item from the previous year.

However, what we do not know is how these reductions would be allocated between the Pentagon and, say, foreign aid or the nuclear weapons complex.  Exact funding levels will be left up to Congress.

Then things get even more confusing.  If a longer-term deal is not reached, security spending is redefined as the traditional “050” budget category, meaning the Department of Defense and some defense-related funding within the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and FBI.

Read more

security matters, Congress, Defense Spending (all tags)

The group Global Zero recently released a report assessing nuclear weapons spending worldwide. Their findings indicate that over the next decade, governments will significantly increase their nuclear weapons spending, eventually surpassing $1 trillion over the next decade.

While this figure is significant, it must also be taken with a grain of salt. First, the trillion dollar figure is what Global Zero calls the “full cost” of nuclear weapons, as opposed to the “core cost.” Core costs refer to "researching, developing, procuring, testing, operating, maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal." Full costs are derived from a more holistic approach, including "unpaid/deferred environmental and health costs, missile defenses assigned to defend nuclear weapons, nuclear threat reduction, and incident management". The report’s figure for the core cost of nuclear weapons over the next decade rests at about $670 million, therefore falling short of the $1 trillion dollar figure.

Another concern is that the report’s figures have a wide margin of error. Quantifying even broad defense spending for countries like Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea is problematic, and as such, speculating about their total nuclear spending is near impossible. Global Zero admits this, but fairly argues that these programs are “small enough that inaccuracies in estimates would have negligible effect on the general conclusion." At current levels, "the nine nuclear weapons countries are spending approximately one trillion dollars per decade."

Methodological concerns aside, what the report succinctly expresses is that world-wide investment in nuclear weapons is greater than ever.

Read more

Global Zero, Defense Spending, USA, Russia (all tags)

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill contains $530 billion in funding for non-war programs and accounts, an increase of $17 billion over FY 2011 and a decrease of approximately $9 billion from the President’s request.

In addition to $530 billion in base spending, the bill contains $118.7 billion in spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, $842 million above the President’s request and $39 billion less than FY 2011, a decrease due to the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq. This total includes $12.8 billion for the training and equipping of Afghan Security forces, and $1.1 billion for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), which has moved from the subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations to the subcommittee on defense.

The total in the bill is $648.7 billion. Other portions of defense spending are contained in the Military Construction and Energy and Water Appropriations Bills.

The bill is expected to be considered by the full House of Representatives the week of June 20. It is expected that germane amendments will be permitted.

Check out the full analysis here.

Read more

Security Matters, House, Congress, F-35, Defense Spending (all tags)

Go on over to the Center's site now for an updated war spending table. Here's the summary:

By the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that total US spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will surpass $1.4 trillion. This total includes approximately $823 billion for operations in Iraq and $557 billion for operations in Afghanistan.

Funding for the war in Iraq has decreased significantly as troops are withdrawn, leading to a notably smaller total spending request for FY2012. Funding for the war in Afghanistan will begin to decrease slightly in FY2012, signaling a possible downward trend.

Annual war spending peaked in FY2008 at $185.7 billion.

Read more

Iraq & Afghanistan, Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY12 (all tags)

Yesterday, Representative Barney Frank delivered a speech at the Center for American Progress on defense spending priorities.  Though (only hours after the president’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed) the issue may not have been the first on everyone’s minds, Frank made the case that it is all the more relevant in light of the US’ recent success.

Calling for a reduction of $200 billion a year from the current Pentagon spending amount of roughly $700 billion per year, Frank said that the United States should reevaluate its commitment to foreign military bases and large deployments of troops overseas, as well as the structure of NATO.  In addition, Frank would like to see a large chunk of that $200 billion reduction come from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who want us to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” said Frank, noting that this was a major victory for the president, who might want to “call President Bush and ask if he can borrow the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.”

Though the threat of terrorism is still very real, Frank argued that it is not exactly the type of threat that is fought using the most costly weapons.  “I wish you could defeat terrorists with nuclear submarines,” said Frank, “because we have a lot of nuclear submarines and they don’t have any nuclear submarines.”

Other lawmakers were less quick to seize on the Afghanistan angle.  “The urgency of finding those savings will remain there and won’t be affected by this,” said Senator Carl Levin, saying that the deficit would need to be reduced whether bin Laden was dead or alive.

Read more

Security Matters, Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Spending (all tags)

As has been rumored for some time now, President Obama is expected to announce this week his decision to appoint Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta to replace Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  The move comes as part of a significant restructuring of the president’s security team.  General David Petraeus will reportedly replace Panetta at CIA, General John Allen will replace Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker will replace Karl Eikenberry as US Ambassador in Kabul.

Gates has been on his way out for some time now and will officially depart this summer, leaving behind some big shoes to fill, in more ways than one.  Above and beyond Gates’ admirable legacy, Panetta will face the issues left behind: Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya on top of a massive deficit and impending defense cuts.  The job won’t be an easy one.

Choosing Panetta, former head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), signals the president’s commitment to taking a hard look at the Pentagon budget at a time when few, certainly not the Republican leadership, are even willing to offer it up for discussion.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, Congress, Panetta, Gates (all tags)

Not today...

Remember the F-22? After years of back and forth over its cost and utility, Congress voted in 2009 to cease additional procurement of the plane. Those that were purchased already have done little more than gather rust since their introduction into the Air Force in 2005.

Early this month, though, the aircraft were reportedly readied for action, just in case, and Gen Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, told Congress that he expected the F-22s to be employed in what was still a hypothetical operation in Libya. Certainly, if the planes have feelings their lonely hearts were aflutter at the possibility of their first big trip into the fray.

It was not to be, however. Schwartz, reporting again to Congress, said yesterday that the reason F-22 fighters have not been used to attack air defenses or counter Libyan jets is because they’re not based in the region.

Well, okay… benefit of the doubt… but there could be some other reasons, as well.

Stephen Trimble speculates that this particular battle may have come a bit too early for the Raptor:

True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.

In a statement that seems to reinforce Trimble’s speculation, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley noted yesterday that the F-22 has “some air-to-ground capability, though it is optimized for air-to-air engagements.” This would render the plane of little use in Libya, where the vast majority of operations have been focused on air-to-ground strikes. The F-15E, by comparison, has the ability to drop laser-guided bombs on moving ground targets.

According to DoD Buzz, the U.S.’ F-16, F-15E, F/A-18G, AV-8B and A-10, Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado, and France’s Rafale and Mirage have appeared in Libya so far. They are joined by B-2 Stealth bombers, B-1 Lancers, and AC-130 gunships, as well as a variety of intelligence and command and control planes.

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, F-22, FY 2010, Libya (all tags)