The recent “deal” to end the debt ceiling impasse came with some untenable strings for the nation’s defense. If the super committee of 12 lawmakers fails to reach agreement on some $1T+ in spending cuts, then an automatic cut of $1.2T kicks in. Approximately $500B of this sum will come from the defense budget. This is on top of the $350B cut from the Pentagon in the debt deal itself.
What makes this approach so indefensible is the backward (and dangerous) approach it takes to funding our defense. For decades, the United States has used a threat-driven strategy when assessing military requirements. This results in a realistic computation of the budget necessary to counter the threat, to provide for the security of the nation, and to ensure the protection of America’s interests abroad.
Although oversimplified, the process begins with the National Security Strategy. The NSS, prepared by the White House, defines the world conditions as they are today, and it outlines what the United States envisions as its broad objectives in the future. The NSS drives the Pentagon to create a National Military Strategy to project what threats we may face to the objectives we defined in the NSS.
These threats help Pentagon planners to devise strategies and to define what weapons systems we will need to counter the projected threat. Strategic planning and weapons system planning create requirements that drive funding. The Department of Defense drafts a budget proposal down to the necessary beans and bullets based upon this detailed, analytical process.
The “doomsday” defense cuts in the debt deal defy the logic of this successful strategy to security planning (the U.S. has the best, most advanced military in the history of the world for good reason). The approach our lawmakers took – and one the White House eagerly agreed to – can only come from a group of people with no military experience, credentials, or basic security knowledge.
If we begin with a broad cut to the defense budget as this approach entails, then how do we reconcile the future threat we’ve already assessed we will face? The threat will remain what it is, and lessening the defense budget will not diminish it. In fact, defense cuts will likely increase the threat as adversaries see we are less prepared (and determined) to counter them.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was right to call this debt deal trigger concept the “doomsday mechanism.” This mechanism has created an expectation that deep defense cuts will be necessary, when perhaps cuts to certain entitlement programs ought to carry more sway. What makes anyone think that 12 handpicked, establishment-type Democrats and Republicans will be able to agree to significant cuts in entitlement programs by late November? We’re doomed!
Mike Angley is the award-winning author of the thriller series, the Child Finder trilogy. He is a retired USAF Colonel and 25-year career Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Follow him on Twitter: @MikeAngley, FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/mike.angley, and visit his website: www.mikeangley.com.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.