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)

By Lt. General Robert Gard (USA, Ret.)

Maintaining U.S. troops in a hostile environment when an overwhelming majority of the population is adamantly opposed to their presence is not only foolhardy but also counter-productive, especially when there is an agreement with the host nation government to withdraw them by a date certain.

On 17 November 2008, the governments of the United States and Iraq signed two landmark documents: a “Strategic Framework for a Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation ….” and an “Agreement … on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq [Status of Forces].” Both entered into force on 1 January 2009, very close to the conclusion of the presidency of George W. Bush.

The Framework agreement stipulates that the United States shall not “seek or request permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq,” and the Status of Forces agreement specifies that “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” While the Bush administration clearly preferred an agreement that did not specify a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the Iraqi government insisted on it as a key provision of the formal Status of Forces agreement.

Read more

Iraq, Panetta (all tags)

USMC Lt. Gen. John Allen (L), US Army Gen. Petraeus (C) and Secretary Panetta (R),Credit: Reuters/Paul Richards/Pool

Despite the blistering heat, Leon Panetta was jovial and informal as he addressed troops, U.S. officials and reporters in Afghanistan in his first trip as Secretary of Defense. He was too casual, immediately sending his spokesperson, Doug Wilson, into clean-up mode.

Panetta announced to reporters that the U.S. would keep 70,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 .  “And obviously, as we get to 2014, we'll develop a plan as to how we reduce that force at that time. For at least the next two years, we're going to have a pretty significant force in place to try to deal with the challenges we face,” he said.  

However, President Obama said in his speech on July 22, 2011 that after recalling 33,000 troops by summer 2012, “our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead.  By 2014, this process of transition will be complete…”  Though the President did not define “steady pace,” Panetta clearly contradicted the President by saying that troops would be there until the end of 2014.  When reporters questioned him, he repeated his timeline, not understanding their confusion.

Spokesman Wilson sprang into action, to explain that Panetta misspoke and was “not here making new policy.”  However, Wilson and aides might also have been quick to correct Panetta because he exposed the Pentagon’s continued preference for high troop levels in Afghanistan.  

Read more

Panetta, Afghanistan (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)