MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Defense Budget

The Washington Post and the New York Times reporters and editors should get a grip. The new defense budget is described as “huge,” a “steep increase,” and as “sharply” boosting defense spending. From the headlines and leads alone, one would think defense spending was being increased by 20% or more – not the 4% bump that it really is. And neither newspaper noted that the administration’s budget submission actually reduces spending in the years ahead when compared to what the White House proposed just a year ago in its FY ‘03 budget.

Of course, no defense budget should be measured by percentages or gross numbers alone. What matters is whether the budget will support American military strategy today and in the future. The short answer is that it won’t.

As Steve Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has noted with respect to this new budget plan, even if the proposed increases in defense spending in the years ahead occur, they are likely to “prove inadequate” to execute the Pentagon’s own modernization plans. This analysis falls on the heels of a Congressional Budget Office report that finds that tens of billions of dollars more will be needed to meet procurement and operational requirements over the next decade.

To alleviate budget pressures, the Defense Department has proposed cutting scores of weapons and systems from the current force structure. Apparently, DoD officials believe that (in the words of National Journal’s George Wilson, “The Pentagon’s New Budget Gamble, 1/18/03) “it is better to risk having too few aircraft and ships today in order to free up money to buy new ones for tomorrow.”

However, there is a risk involved. USA Today reports today, for example, that defense officials confirm that the U.S. military “would be stretched dangerously thin if war erupted in Korea during a conflict with Iraq.” Not only would we be hard pressed to reinforce South Korea with ready and equipped troops, but there would also be significant shortages in lift, AWACs, midair refuelers and reconnaissance aircraft. Indeed, according to a recent news story, General Peter Pace, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, admits that “critical weaknesses” in planning for a possible confrontation with North Korea have been exposed as plans for a military confrontation with Iraq have moved forward. (Aerospace Daily, “Pace: War Plans Expose Cracks in Timelines for Troop Build-ups,” 1/24/03.)

There is no getting around the fact more money will be needed to address these problems. In a letter to President Bush on January 23, two dozen defense experts wrote: “To rebuild, transform, and man our military adequately for its many missions and responsibilities, defense spending will need to be increased by an additional $70 to $100 billion.” And, yesterday, Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, issued a statement calling for a $43 billion increase in next year’s defense budget, noting that the current spending plan “fails to provide for the military dominance that should be our standard in this dangerous era.” In the coming months, as the president’s budget is debated, members of Congress should thoroughly examine whether the country can afford a defense budget that does not adequately support the military’s needs and the administration’s own broad national security strategy.