Defense Cuts Must Be Part of Fiscal Solution, Secretary Says

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2011 — Cur­tail­ing defense spend­ing must be part of the solu­tion for the nation’s finan­cial woes, Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates said here today.
Gates told an audi­ence at the Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute that the Unit­ed States faces a seri­ous fis­cal predica­ment that, if not addressed soon, could become a cri­sis affect­ing the nation’s cred­it, con­fi­dence and posi­tion in the world.

Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma has set a goal of hold­ing growth in base nation­al secu­ri­ty spend­ing slight­ly below infla­tion for the next 12 years. That would save about $400 bil­lion, the pre­pon­der­ance of which would come from the Defense Depart­ment, the sec­re­tary said.

“I have long believed — and I still do — that the defense bud­get, how­ev­er large it may be, is not the cause of this country’s fis­cal woes,” Gates said. “How­ev­er, as mat­ter of sim­ple arith­metic and polit­i­cal real­i­ty, the Depart­ment of Defense must be at least part of the solu­tion.”

The sec­re­tary said he under­stands those who believe that the only rea­son the nation faces tough choic­es in defense spend­ing is that the Pentagon’s bud­get isn’t as large as it should be. He not­ed that it is a much small­er per­cent­age of the nation’s gross domes­tic prod­uct — the out­put of goods and ser­vices pro­duced in the Unit­ed States – than it used to be.

“Defense expen­di­tures are cur­rent­ly a low­er share of GDP than most of the last half cen­tu­ry, and a much low­er per­cent­age than dur­ing pre­vi­ous major wars,” the sec­re­tary said. “When Pres­i­dent [Dwight D.] Eisen­how­er warned of the ‘Mil­i­tary Indus­tri­al Com­plex’ in 1961, defense con­sumed more than half the fed­er­al bud­get, and the por­tion of the nation’s eco­nom­ic out­put devot­ed to the mil­i­tary was about 9 per­cent.

“By com­par­i­son,” Gates con­tin­ued, “this year’s base defense bud­get of $530 bil­lion – the high­est since World War II adjust­ed for infla­tion – rep­re­sents less than 15 per­cent of all fed­er­al spend­ing and equates to rough­ly 3 and a half per­cent of GDP – a num­ber that climbs to about 4 and a half per­cent when the war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are includ­ed.” Still, Gates said, he does­n’t fore­see a return of defense spend­ing to lev­els sparked by the Sovi­et threat in the sec­ond half of the 20th cen­tu­ry.

“Absent a cat­a­stroph­ic inter­na­tion­al con­flict or new exis­ten­tial threat, we are not like­ly to return to Cold War lev­els of defense expen­di­tures, at least as a share of nation­al wealth any­time soon,” he said. “Nor do I believe we need to.”

The threats and poten­tial adver­saries the nation faces today are dan­ger­ous and daunt­ing for their com­plex­i­ty, vari­ety and unpre­dictabil­i­ty, Gates said. “But as a mat­ter of nation­al sur­vival,” he added, “they do not approach the scale of the Sovi­et mil­i­tary threat that pro­vid­ed the polit­i­cal and strate­gic ratio­nale for defense expen­di­tures that con­sumed a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of our econ­o­my.”

Anoth­er rea­son why Cold War-lev­el defense bud­gets prob­a­bly won’t return — at least as a share of GDP – is that the nation’s finan­cial con­di­tion has changed, whether mea­sured in the size of debt and deficits, ratios of retirees to work­ers, or the share of the fed­er­al bud­get con­sumed by enti­tle­ments.

“The mon­ey and polit­i­cal sup­port sim­ply aren’t there,” he said.

Gates detailed efforts over the last two years to rein in Pen­ta­gon over­head costs and imple­ment oth­er effi­cien­cies, and he said more needs to be done in that regard.

“I believe there are more sav­ings pos­si­ble by culling more over­head and bet­ter account­ing for, and thus bet­ter man­ag­ing, the funds and peo­ple we have,” he said. “But one thing is quite clear: these effi­cien­cies efforts will not come close to meet­ing the bud­get tar­gets laid out by the pres­i­dent, much less oth­er, high­er tar­gets being bandied about.”

Still, he said, per­spec­tive is impor­tant.

“What’s being pro­posed by the pres­i­dent is noth­ing close to the dra­mat­ic cuts of the past,” he said. “For exam­ple, defense spend­ing in con­stant dol­lars declined by rough­ly a third between 1985 and 1998. What’s being con­sid­ered today, assum­ing all $400 bil­lion comes from DOD over 12 years, cor­re­sponds to a pro­ject­ed reduc­tion of about 5 per­cent in con­stant dol­lars – or slight­ly less than keep­ing pace with infla­tion.

“Nonethe­less,” he added, “meet­ing this sav­ings tar­get will require real cuts – giv­en the esca­lat­ing costs of so many parts of the defense bud­get – and, as a result, real choic­es.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →