Gates Budget Review to ‘Force Discussion’ of Risk Analysis

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2011 — Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates today announced the frame­work for a com­pre­hen­sive review of mil­i­tary spend­ing designed to put nation­al secu­ri­ty needs ahead of arbi­trary bud­get cuts. 

“We must reject the tra­di­tion­al approach of apply­ing across-the-board cuts — the sim­plest and most polit­i­cal­ly expe­di­ent approach, both inside this build­ing and out­side of it,” Gates said at a Pen­ta­gon news brief­ing. “That kind of an approach pre­serves over­head and main­tains force struc­ture on paper. But it results in a hol­low­ing out of the force from a lack of prop­er train­ing, main­te­nance and equip­ment. We’ve been there before in the 1970s and in the 1990s.” 

Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma, in an April 13 speech on the nation’s fis­cal chal­lenges, set a goal of sav­ing $400 bil­lion over 12 years, most­ly from the Defense Depart­ment and beyond sav­ings already iden­ti­fied. To do that, he direct­ed Gates and oth­er Pen­ta­gon lead­ers to con­duct a “fun­da­men­tal review of America’s mil­i­tary mis­sions, capa­bil­i­ties, and secu­ri­ty role around the world,” Gates noted. 

Defense lead­ers have worked for more than two years to find cost sav­ings in the depart­ment, Gates said. The effort began in acqui­si­tions, with more than 20 weapons sys­tems being cur­tailed or can­celled, then moved to cut­ting over­head costs and redi­rect­ing the sav­ings to sup­port warfight­ers and help to reduce the fed­er­al deficit. “The over­ar­ch­ing goal of these efforts was to carve out enough bud­get space to pre­serve and enhance key mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties in the face of declin­ing rates of bud­get growth,” he said. The goal of the new review, Gates said, is “to pre­serve a U.S. mil­i­tary capa­ble of meet­ing cru­cial nation­al secu­ri­ty pri­or­i­ties, even if fis­cal pres­sure requires reduc­tions in the force’s size.” The review will be guid­ed by the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Review, the Nation­al Defense Strat­e­gy, the Nation­al Mil­i­tary Strat­e­gy, the Chairman’s Risk Assess­ment and the Qua­dren­ni­al Defense Review to ensure it is focused on “strate­gic pol­i­cy choic­es, first, and cor­re­spond­ing changes in the DOD bud­get, sec­ond,” the sec­re­tary said. The direc­tor of cost assess­ment and pro­gram review, the under­sec­re­tary of defense for pol­i­cy, and the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will lead the effort joint­ly, he added. 

The review will pro­vide a strong ana­lyt­i­cal link cur­rent­ly miss­ing between the QDR and the present make­up of the forces, the sec­re­tary said. Once com­pet­ing strat­e­gy options are iden­ti­fied, only then should the review con­sid­er fis­cal impli­ca­tions and options, he said. 

The sec­re­tary out­lined a four-step process for sav­ing mon­ey in the depart­ment that would start with iden­ti­fy­ing addi­tion­al effi­cien­cies to be gained from elim­i­nat­ing bureau­crat­ic excess and over­head. But that alone won’t gen­er­ate enough sav­ings, Gates said, so exam­in­ers should then move on to look­ing at pro­grams, process­es and man­dates that dri­ve up costs, “to include the way we deliv­er health care, com­pen­sate mil­i­tary per­son­nel, pro­vide retire­ment ben­e­fits, sus­tain our infra­struc­ture and acquire goods and services.” 

In the third cat­e­go­ry, offi­cials will review mis­sions and capa­bil­i­ties of mar­gin­al scope against over­all strat­e­gy. “They rep­re­sent mis­sions that the depart­ment car­ries out today that, while of val­ue, are not cen­tral to our core mis­sion or are of low­er pri­or­i­ty,” Gates explained. 

Gates cit­ed the long-stand­ing U.S. strat­e­gy that calls for the mil­i­tary to be able to fight two major, region­al con­flicts simul­ta­ne­ous­ly as an exam­ple of review­ing strate­gic alternatives. 

“If you were to tell your­self the like­li­hood of hav­ing two such fights simul­ta­ne­ous­ly is low, and you could there­fore plan to fight sequen­tial­ly, that would have huge impli­ca­tions in terms of the size of force that you need to main­tain,” he said. “But the oth­er side of that is the risk involved if you’re wrong.” 

The final area for con­sid­er­a­tion – “the hard­est cat­e­go­ry, strate­gi­cal­ly, and I would say intel­lec­tu­al­ly,” Gates said – is to con­sid­er alter­na­tives to the Qua­dren­ni­al Defense Review strat­e­gy that trans­late into options for reduc­tions in force struc­ture or capa­bil­i­ty need­ed to exe­cute the strat­e­gy, Gates said. Such con­sid­er­a­tion would be informed by all the oth­er activ­i­ties in the frame­work, he added. 

“In the end, this process must be about iden­ti­fy­ing options for the pres­i­dent and the Con­gress where the nation is will­ing to accept risk in exchange for reduced invest­ment in the Depart­ment of Defense,” Gates said. No mat­ter what hap­pens in the review process, the sec­re­tary said, lead­ers must make tough deci­sions and avoid the “hol­low­ing out” of the forces. 

“I want to force that kind of dis­cus­sion,” he said. “If we’re going to cut the mil­i­tary, if we’re going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. mil­i­tary, peo­ple need to make con­scious choic­es about what the impli­ca­tions of that are for the secu­ri­ty of the coun­try, as well as for the oper­a­tions that we have around the world.” 

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

Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

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 →