In an essay for the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, Defense Secretary Robert Gates issues yet another welcome call for reform.  While the QDR may not exactly have been “shaped by a bracing dose of realism,” Gates does seem to be setting his priorities, one by one (very little by very little).

Yesterday in The Hill, Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman point out that the 2010 QDR:

… gives equal priority to every mission the Pentagon and the military want to undertake: current wars, future conventional deterrence and war-fighting, counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, stability operations, overseas presence, power projection, and homeland defense.  No mission is given lower priority. In fact, rather than change its mission planning, the Pentagon has added the new missions to the existing requirement of fighting two major wars at nearly the same time.

This is too much, and Gates seems to agree.  In Foreign Affairs, Gates argues that in the future, the U.S. will “only be as good as the effectiveness, credibility, and sustainability of its local partners” and lends credence to the Nixon Doctrine, which used military and economic assistance to resist Soviet-sponsored insurgencies without using U.S. troops.  

As we all know well today, military intervention is costly, both monetarily and morally.  Gates notes that, “The U.S. military, although resilient in spirit and magnificent in performance, is under stress and strain fighting two wars and confronting diffuse challenges around the globe.”

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY11, Gates, Iraq & Afghanistan (all tags)

Chairman Kent Conrad announced the passage of his fiscal 2011 budget resolution by the Senate Budget Committee today on a party line vote of 12 to 10.  The document is a nonbinding framework that doesn't have to be signed into law by the president, but provides a strong indication of the budget road ahead.

Proposals include a $4 billion cut of President Obama's discretionary spending request, as well as a freeze of non-security discretionary spending for three years.  

No surprises here – I’m sure we can all think of a few things that might be cut from the President’s request, and since it does make up over half of discretionary spending, it would be prudent to start with defense, right?  Not according to Conrad.

The Chairman’s Mark finds its entire $4 billion cut in the budget for International Affairs, a move that, according to the document, is “strong on national defense” – meaning weak on development and diplomacy?  

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, International Affairs, FY11 (all tags)