Dempsey: Defense Budget Reflects Clear Strategic Choices

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2012 — The deci­sions behind the fis­cal 2013 defense bud­get request Defense Sec­re­tary Leon E. Panet­ta announced today rep­re­sent the department’s pri­or­i­ties of main­tain­ing capa­bil­i­ty, keep­ing mil­i­tary pay and ben­e­fits fair, and man­ag­ing risk, the nation’s top mil­i­tary offi­cer said today.

Army Gen. Mar­tin E. Dempsey, chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the bud­get request is based on the defense strat­e­gy guid­ance Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma announced Jan. 5, and rep­re­sents clear strate­gic choices. 

He and the ser­vice chiefs worked close­ly with the pres­i­dent and Panet­ta, the ser­vice sec­re­taries and senior enlist­ed advi­sors to pre­pare a bud­get request that rec­og­nizes the ser­vices’ unique strengths, the chair­man told reporters dur­ing a Pen­ta­gon briefing. 

“At the same time, we put nation­al secu­ri­ty above parochial inter­est — exact­ly what the Amer­i­can peo­ple should expect of us,” he added. 

The department’s fis­cal 2013 base bud­get request is $525 bil­lion, plus $88.4 bil­lion for over­seas con­tin­gency oper­a­tions. Those num­bers are down from fis­cal 2012’s $531 bil­lion base and $115 bil­lion for over­seas con­tin­gen­cies. Defense offi­cials said the bud­get request imple­ments $259 bil­lion in sav­ings over five years, as required by the Bud­get Con­trol Act. 

“Capa­bil­i­ty is more impor­tant than size,” Dempsey said, not­ing the strat­e­gy and bud­get request both call for a small­er force. 

“We get lean­er. But this bud­get does not lead to a mil­i­tary in decline,” he said. “It leads to a joint force that is glob­al and net­worked, that is ver­sa­tile and inno­v­a­tive, that is ably led and that is always ready.” 

That joint force “can win any con­flict, any­where,” the chair­man added. 

Troops will not lose mon­ey because of the spend­ing cuts, Dempsey empha­sized. There are no pro­posed pay freezes or reduc­tions, and depart­ment offi­cials will not change health care ben­e­fits for active-duty troops, those with com­bat injuries or ser­vice mem­bers who have med­ical­ly retired, he added. 

“But we can­not — we can­not — ignore some hard real­i­ties,” he warned. “Pay and ben­e­fits are now rough­ly one-third of defense spend­ing. … Pay will need to grow more slow­ly in the future.” 

The chair­man said the bud­get request does include mod­est increas­es in health-care fees, co-pays and deductibles for retirees, and depart­ment offi­cials are study­ing retire­ment reform. 

“We’ll take the time to deter­mine how to enact any retire­ment reforms over the next year,” he said. 

Pen­ta­gon offi­cials said mil­i­tary mem­bers — after a decade of sub­stan­tial annu­al pay increas­es from Con­gress — now receive equal or bet­ter pay than most of their civil­ian counterparts. 

Since 2000, they note, basic pay has risen 62 per­cent, hous­ing allowances have increased by 58 per­cent, and sub­sis­tence allowance is up 43 per­cent, com­pared to a 46-per­cent rise in pri­vate-sec­tor salaries. 

The bud­get strikes a nec­es­sary bal­ance between suc­ceed­ing in cur­rent con­flicts and prepar­ing for future threats, while account­ing for risks and fis­cal con­straints, the chair­man said. 

“It rep­re­sents respon­si­ble invest­ment in our nation­al secu­ri­ty,” Dempsey said. “But make no mis­take, the trade­offs were tough. The choic­es were complex.” 

The chair­man acknowl­edged that cal­cu­lat­ed risks were nec­es­sary to achieve the sav­ings. “The pri­ma­ry risks lie not in what we can do, but in how much we can do and how fast we can do it,” he said. “The risks, there­fore, are in terms of time and capacity.” 

Defense lead­ers have ful­ly con­sid­ered those risks, the chair­man said. 

“I am con­vinced we can prop­er­ly man­age them by ensur­ing we keep the force in bal­ance, invest­ing in new capa­bil­i­ties and pre­serv­ing a strong reserve com­po­nent,” he said. “As I’ve said before, we will face greater risks if we do not change the way we’ve been doing things.” 

The bud­get request trims the num­ber of F‑35 joint strike fight­ers the depart­ment will buy by 179 over the next five years. It also post­pones sev­er­al planned ships, includ­ing an ocean sur­veil­lance ves­sel, a sub­ma­rine, a dock land­ing ship, two lit­toral com­bat ships, eight joint high-speed ves­sels and three oil­ers. Six of the cur­rent 60 Air Force tac­ti­cal air squadrons will be cut, and 130 air­craft will be retired or divest­ed from the air­lift fleet. The request cuts the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps, fore­casts Army and Air Force troop-num­ber reduc­tions in Europe, and calls for rounds of base realign­ments and clo­sures in fis­cal years 2013 and 2015. 

“Much will be said and writ­ten about the indi­vid­ual deci­sions under­ly­ing this bud­get,” the chair­man said. “Some may be tempt­ed to view them through the prism of a zero-sum game, pars­ing through each cut, each change, to look for a win­ner and a loser. 

“That is actu­al­ly the least-pro­duc­tive way to assess this bud­get,” he added. 

The Defense Depart­ment has a real strat­e­gy that reflects real choic­es, Dempsey said, and the bud­get pro­pos­al the pres­i­dent is sched­uled to send to Con­gress ear­ly next month embod­ies those realities. 

“I’m con­fi­dent it meets our nation’s needs in our cur­rent fights and for our future,” he said. 

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

Team GlobDef

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

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →