Tags: military, budget, Pentagon, strategy, defense, drones, Air Force, Army, Special Forces, sequestration

Prolog

Julian E. Barnes and Nathan Hodge published an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently about the President’s proposed National Defense policy.  It proclaimed the highlights of Obama’s policy proposal for the future of the US military along with tactfully written comments from politicians, military “think tanks” and ex-military commanders.  Remember, the President of the United States (POTUS) is Commander in Chief of the US Military.  The information in the WSJ should be considered more political (called a “trial balloon”) than factual because the official strategy is yet to be published.

Overall, the proposal envisions shrinking military spending by an additional $487 billion over 10 years.  This amount equates to a cut of about 8% in coming years, according to Pentagon preliminary estimates. This amount is on top of the prior defense cuts ($470 billion+) but not the Super Committee cuts created by sequestration.  As Commander in Chief, the president has wide latitude to set military priorities. However, the US Congress must approve any specific cuts the Pentagon announces in coming weeks to implement the President’s policy.  The Secretary of Defense hopes Congress will spare the Military from the consequences of the Super Committee’s failure to act.

The President’s Proposal

President Obama said the nation was “turning the page” on a decade of war. However, our potential and real enemies are not on the “same page” as our President.  Our President and Pentagon leaders said they weren’t abandoning the U.S. role as the pre-eminent global power.

“Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” President Obama said in a rare appearance by a US President at the Pentagon.

Do you believe that the Pentagon and the Congressional Armed Services Committee believes that?  Remember, POTUS is the Pentagon’s Commander in Chief.

Here is the “bottom line.”  POTUS wants a historic shift in the U.S. military’s size and ambitions.  He wants to reduce its ability to wage the type of war and occupation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to divert defense spending toward social programs and reduce deficit spending over the next decade.  His proposal raised doubts that the military could accomplish its newly proposed mission given the severe cuts proposed on top of previous cuts and the consequences of the Super Committee inaction. Here is how he proposes to proceed:

1. The Army would face a 14% reduction in troop strength. The Army, currently at 570,000, likely would shrink to about 490,000. The US Military would no longer have the means to conduct two significant ground wars at once.  This decision sunsets a strategic mandate of the Defense Department by prior administrations.
2. POTUS wants to further reduce the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
3. POTUS wants to delay production and deployment of the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons, such as the F-35 stealth jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin Corp and the new long-range stealth bomber program.
4. POTUS emphasized a new counter-terrorism strategy using special operations forces.  These missions would create only a small footprint overseas and would work with local forces.
5. POTUS prefers operations such as the war in Libya, which involved a coalition of nations (NATO), authorized by the United Nations (UN) without U.S. ground forces.
6. Intelligence and surveillance would take on increasingly important roles, relying on unmanned drones.

Congress, “Think Tanks”  and Retired Military React

Congressional leaders, especially Republicans, responded swiftly to the President’s alleged strategy.  That even included so-called Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) and some “blue dog” Democrats.  Here is a sample offered by the WSJ authors:

• Sen. John McCain (R, Ariz.) said the U.S. couldn’t afford a “budget-driven defense strategy.”  He also said that he would review the document released by the administration. “I understand the need for reductions in defense spending, but we must also address the broader cultural problem plaguing our defense establishment: the waste, inefficiency, and ineffective programs.”
• Retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno is a member of the Center for a New American Security.  This is a “think tank” that often aligns with the administration.  He said that the plan “fails to address the elephant in the room: whether this strategy can hold up under the weight of further defense cuts,” [sic] particularly additional cuts contained in the debt-ceiling agreement Congress reached last year.
• Charles Knight is co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.  This organization advocates more aggressive defense-spending cuts.  He said that the administration’s plans were “only baby steps” toward greater fiscal restraint.  “The first strategic priority of the United States today is to get its economic house in order,” he said. “Doing this means spending less on the military in coming years.”

Political Candidates Weigh In

Other influential critics may “weigh in” during coming weeks as the Pentagon reveals details of the additional cuts.  Most Republican presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, propose increases in defense spending.  They also criticized proposed Pentagon cutbacks in the past.  The notable exception, Ron Paul, wants to stop all foreign aid and military assistance, close all foreign military bases, and use the returning troops for border control.

The Pentagon Ponders and Figures

Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Leon Panetta (appointed by POTUS and approved by the Democratic controlled US Senate) said the military still will be able to respond to multiple crises at once, deterring aggression around the globe.  He also said, “Make no mistake. We will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.”  SECDEF added, “The Army and Marine Corps will no longer be sized to support the large-scale, long-term stability operations that dominated military priorities…over the past decade.”

The Military released a strategy document Thursday, January 12.  It said the military will be redesigned to fight one war using air, land and sea forces, while still being able to take on undefined “involvements” in another region.

President Obama said, “I wouldn’t repeat the mistakes of past administrations by crippling the military through postwar cuts.”  However, some Pentagon officials said that the proposed reductions will be as deep as those after Vietnam and the Cold War.

Mr. Panetta and defense contractors have argued for months that the planned cuts, while tolerable, are quite steep. But they have contended that an additional $500 billion to $600 billion in cuts over the next 10 years triggered by last year’s congressional deal on the country’s debt ceiling would be ruinous for the military.

Mr. Panetta added, “The capability, readiness and agility of the force will not be sustained if Congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts.  That would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core U.S. national security interests. And it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force.”

Defense officials said they wouldn’t abandon the military’s expertise in conducting stability operations, but would move some of the resources to military reserves. That would preserve the ability of the Army to conduct limited counterinsurgency.

The Pentagon plans to shift its focus and resources away from Europe towards the Far East. The Pentagon sees China’s military modernization as a growing threat.  The Pentagon plans a new military approach to more aggressively counter Beijing’s “anti-access” technologies.  They are especially concerned about weapons such as China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile.  This weapon could destroy a flotilla of U.S. ships up to 1,000 nautical miles from its launch point with a single tactical nuclear warhead.

Mr. Obama approved a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, but administration officials have always viewed counterinsurgency operations with skepticism. The new strategy reflects the administration’s view that counterinsurgency conflicts are too costly, while yielding murky results and incremental gains for international security.

My Observations          

1.  This reduction in force could place approximately 80,000 US military personnel among the unemployed seeking work.  Reserve Forces would take on a larger role. (The Reservists get paid only when they work.  That is why they are nicknamed “weekend warriors.”)  Civilian contractors would be displaced by military personnel.
2. POTUS’s nuclear weapons reduction policy includes a unilateral reduction of tactical nuclear weapons, heretofore not covered within any nuclear disarmament treaty.  The US has no nuclear disarmament treaty with Communist China.  This unilateral nuclear reduction policy tests the viability of the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty.
3. POTUS wants to share with Russia the classified US technology for missile defense systems because “It is the right thing to do.”  Never mind that Russia is a provider of nuclear technology for Iran’s nuclear weapons program and swore to defend Iran from any attack from the US or Israel.  Also, many of Israel’s citizens are refugees from Russia’s brutal discrimination of Jews that lived in the former USSR.  Also, Russia may have hacked and redirected that surveillance drone that landed in Iran.  If so, they could do it again.  Both Russia and China will have access to communication link protocols by inspecting the captured drone sitting intact in Iran.  China also demonstrated that they can kill our GPSS satellites whenever they want to do so.  Without the satellites, our drones are useless.
4. He wants to reduce nuclear weapon research and technical upgrades required to make our remaining nuclear arsenal safer and more modern.  Meanwhile, at least Russia and China continue research on a neutron bomb that would generate a devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
5. The proposed cuts do not factor in the deliberate inflation of the US Dollar due to:
   1.  Two rounds of “quantitative easing”,
   2.  The threat of a third round,
   3.  A recent strategic switch by the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) from short-term to mid-term US Treasuries.
   4. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is about to cut up the US “credit card” by eliminating the US Dollar as the preferred reserve currency for international trade.  That is a $4 – 6 trillion dollar interest-free loan that is not on the books of the US Treasury.
6. The US provided 2/3 of the total airpower for the NATO coalition forces in Libya because only the US had the air command and control systems and aircraft to get the job done.  One NATO ally, Sweden, ran out of ordinance and had to be re-supplied by the US Air Force.  The US Navy fired over 130 cruise missiles to achieve air superiority at $1.2 million each.  US stealth F-22s could have done the job for about $10,000 per sortie if Mr. Panetta had allowed their use in that war theater.  He did not want to risk a potential loss of our only fighter with any chance of survival in hostile airspace against those Russian-built SAM-6 missiles.
7. The Super Committee failed to reach agreement.  That failure forces a mandatory across-the-board $510 billion cut in the Defense budget over the next ten years on top of over $470 billion in cuts previously imposed by Congress.  If Congress cannot divert this cut with alternate savings, this action threatens to “hallow out” the remaining Military forces, especially the US Air Force.  This makes it financially difficult to implement his new strategy for an agile strike force.  It could endanger combat troops because the Air Force cannot achieve air superiority without stealth fighters.  Drones (RPAs) must have friendly airspace and reliable satellite links secure from enemy eavesdropping, disruption or outright capture of its communications link.  Without intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance from the air (ISR) along with a hellfire missile or two ready to pounce, ground troops and their logistical support become vulnerable to an enemy air attack and ground-led ambush.  It also leaves them with little air transport to engage the enemy quickly in a different war theater or provide logistical support in hard-to-reach places.  The new strategy requires superior and sustainable military power along with the agility to relocate between war zones quickly and safely.  That requires the US Air Force.  How can the Air Force manage that support if the Air Force lacks the resources to function?
8. The aging fleet of military aircraft makes them more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to fly than replacement aircraft that could penetrate hostile air defenses.  POTUS’s proposed policy says nothing to remedy this situation.  Drones cannot live in hostile airspace because the reaction speed of the communication link is not fast enough for air-to-air combat.  That is why drones have no anti-aircraft weapons on board.  Our older aircraft are sitting ducks for a modern surface to air missile (SAM).
9. A military transport of any kind must have access to base support close to the hostile action to be anything close to agile.  It takes time and energy to make a round trip.  If people are wounded, the treatment center must be close by, not half way around the world.  The same logic applies to drones, fighters and bombers.  A drone cannot loiter much in a war theater if it consumes most of its fuel getting there and getting back home.

Tags: military, budget, Pentagon, strategy, defense, drones, Air Force, Army, Special Forces, sequestration