But there's an obvious contradiction in the conservative position, because the same people who want to preserve the current, robust level of military outlays also want to reduce the budget deficit without raising taxes. That just doesn't add up in an economy that is struggling to reach three-percent growth annually. We can have higher taxes and continue generating nearly half of all global military outlays; or we can keep taxes where they are and bring federal outlays down to the level that current tax receipts would sustain. But there is no third option if we are intent on reducing the deficit.

Some conservatives contend that this all can be reconciled by simply paring back the welfare state. But you could wipe out the entire Social Security program -- over a quarter of the federal budget -- and Washington would still be running a sizable budget deficit. Since there is little evidence voters would stand for cuts to Social Security or the major healthcare entitlement programs, opponents of military cuts have some explaining to do. So let's hear it AEI, Heritage, et. al. -- what's your plan? Do you want to raise taxes or just keep borrowing money from China? If you don't want to do either, inquiring minds want to know how you propose that a country with five percent of the world's people and 25 percent of the world's economic output can continue generating nearly half of global military expenditures.

Loren B. Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates, a for-profit consultancy, January 30, 2012.   For those of you unfamiliar with the Lexington Institute, it's a pretty hawkish, pro-defense outfit.

Read more

Security Matters (all tags)

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 released the following statement in response to the Pentagon's new strategic guidance and remarks by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...

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)

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)

The U.S. presidential election is less than a year away and the media is currently filled with news regarding the Republican presidential candidates. The week after Thanksgiving, Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that the 2012 election received 23% of all media coverage, and that number will only rise as we get closer to D-day. In light of this, the Center has put together a foreign policy profile on our webpage for each Republican candidate in the race. You can check it out here.

Read more

GOP Candidates, Nukes on a Blog, Security Matters (all tags)

After a lot of moving and shaking over the past 48 hours, today the Senate will begin consideration of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (now S. 1867).  

The Senate was supposed to consider and hopefully complete action on the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354, but Majority Leader Reid pulled it from consideration and now plans to move to consideration of the defense bill.  It's doubtful that the bill will be completed before Thanksgiving, and Reid could bring back the Energy and Water bill if the defense bill hits a snag.

If the Energy and Water bill does get back to the floor, we'll be monitoring the fate of two amendments to increase NNSA's weapons activities account by about $321 million.  Recall that the Senate Appropriations Committee reduced the budget for this account by $440 million (or about 5.8%).  One amendment (offered by Begich, McCain, Vitter, and Shaheen) uses the Patriot/MEADS program as the offset, while the other (offered by Corker and Kyl) uses the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations account as the offset (something we suggested might happen).

In the meantime, in preparation for the Senate's consideration of the defense bill, head over to the mothership for our original and updated analysis of the Senate Armed Services Committee Version of the bill.  I say updated because earlier this week the Committee made some adjustments to the bill in order to cut about $20 billion from its original mark to conform with the lower (Budget Control Act-influenced) spending levels in the Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee also rewrote a controversial provision related to detainee policy which remains, well, controversial.

Get all that?

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Security Matters, Congress (all tags)

On Thursday, October 20 the San Antonio Express ran my Op-Ed calling on the Super Committee and Congress to make real changes in government spending, read- the defense budget.

You can find it here.

Below is an excerpt:

Both the "supercommittee," a group of 12 Republicans and Democrats, and other congressional panels are working to find at least $1.2 trillion to cut from government spending over the next decade. However, neither the supercommittee in particular nor Congress in general seems to want to make real changes to government spending.

The biggest debate is over cutting military spending, which has grown 81 percent in since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of looking for opportunities to scrap wasteful military programs, some lawmakers are seeking loopholes to avoid making any defense cuts at all.

Read more

Security Matters, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Kingston Reif and I argue in World Politics Review today that growing the US nuclear weapons budget is the wrong priority in a time of such fiscal austerity...

A few highlights:

A close look at the Pentagon budget reveals numerous programs that are more suitable to defeating the Cold War-era Soviet Union than to addressing current security threats, such as weak and failing states, cyberattacks and nuclear terrorism. A particularly egregious example is the budget for nuclear weapons programs.

[snip]

The plan to recapitalize the triad includes around $110 billion to build a new fleet of 12 nuclear-armed submarines. The Pentagon estimates the total cost of building and operating each new submarine at nearly $350 billion over its 50-year lifespan. It also plans to spend $55 billion on procurement of 100 bombers and an unknown sum on a new intercontinental ballistic missile. Additionally, the National Nuclear Security Administration plans to spend $88 billion over the next decade to refurbish existing nuclear warheads and rebuild the factories that make key nuclear warhead parts.

[snip]

The U.S. nuclear arsenal of more than 5,000 active weapons may be useful in deterring a large-scale conventional or nuclear attack from a state, but it cannot prevent terrorists from acquiring or using a nuclear device, thwart the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states or ensure a stable and predictable relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

In the fight for scarce resources among national security programs, investments should match capabilities to current threats. The need to prioritize is particularly important as the Pentagon calculates the opportunity costs of building new nuclear-weapons delivery systems at the expense of other defense priorities, such as upgrading conventional air and naval power projection capabilities, confronting unconventional challenges in countries such as Afghanistan and keeping up with the growing medical costs for veterans.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Security Matters (all tags)

On August 21, the Libyan opposition forces stormed the capital, Tripoli, and took control of President Ghaddafi’s compound.  The war is not over, as Ghaddafi loyalists continue to battle the rebels, and the Transitional National Council (the organization formed to represent the opposition) will need to begin work to fill the power vacuum. The council has a huge task ahead of it to restore order, rebuild the country, create legitimate national institutions and cobble its different factions into some sort of working government.  More immediately, the opposition and NATO have to secure Ghaddafi’s chemical weapons and low-enriched uranium stockpiles.

In addition to Ghaddafi’s arsenals of conventional weapons, he is rumored to have stockpiled chemical weapons agents.  NATO has pledged to secure the chemical weapons so that Ghaddafi forces cannot use them against the opposition and civilians, but the opposition will also need to be involved.  James Corbett, a member of the Center for Research on Globalization, doesn’t believe the Ghaddafi regime would use these weapons in a last ditch effort to hold on to power, since it hasn’t used them yet.  However, the greater risk is that, amidst the chaos of Ghaddafi’s overthrow, these stockpiles could be susceptible to theft by smugglers or terrorists.  Terrorist organizations, such as Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, have successfully used chemical weapons against civilians in the past.  

Read more

Libya, nuclear security, terrorism, Security Matters (all tags)

Written by John Isaacs, appears in ADA Today:

United States involvement in the Libyan war may turn out to be the straw that broke the political and philosophical back of the military interventionists.

Most of the country having long turned against George W. Bush’s war of choice in Iraq, President Obama has been continuing the process of withdrawal from that (at least tenuously) pacified country. Disaffection with the Iraq war hurt the Republicans at the polls in 2006 and 2008.

As for the Afghan war, many on the left and right were willing to reserve judgment on President Obama’s actions early in his administration because he had inherited a weak position from his predecessor.  Besides, Afghanistan—in contrast to Iraq—was the “good” war, one directly related to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

But the effort to oust long-time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi means the United States is engaged in three military conflicts at the same time, to say nothing of predator drone strikes in other countries. While liberals are split on the Libyan conflict, the expanding wars are widely perceived to be military interventionism run amuck.

Read more

Security Matters, Libya, Afghanistan, Merkley, McGovern, Iraq (all tags)