By Travis Sharp
Best Defense chief defense budget
correspondent
In his latest fusillade against
Pentagonal inertia, Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday reiterated his commitment to "belt-tightening,
making tough choices, and essentially refocusing available resources" within
DOD's budget.
Gates has kicked up a lot of
rhetorical dust in recent weeks by asking tough questions about the need for
several high-priced weapons systems. Yet literal-minded defense wonks will tell
you that Gates' stated objective is actually quite modest:
cutting $10-$15 billion, a two percent smidgen of DOD's annual budget, in
"overhead costs" and redirecting those savings toward force structure and
modernization.
Though modest, Gates' agenda
faces a foe that has inspired fear and loathing in many a defense secretary:
the U.S. Congress during an election year. In a demonstration of the uphill
climb Gates faces, the House Armed Services Committee last week added funding
for several things the Pentagon didn't ask for, including an alternate engine
for a Joint Strike Fighter program that is already under scrutiny for cost
increases and schedule delays. Gates has threatened repeatedly to recommend
that President Obama veto any bill that funds the alternate engine, but defense
kingpins Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Daniel Inouye, and Rep. Ike Skelton have all
publicly voiced their dissent.
Such congressional
independent-mindedness threatens to detract from the legacy of perhaps the best defense secretary of all time.
Expect Dr. Gates, who may be in the last year of the last job he'll
ever have, to respond accordingly.
Yet things on Capitol Hill aren't
all bad. To dispel any sense that Congress is just hopelessly lousy and should
stay away from defense policy -- in fact, an active and informed Congress is more
important than ever in an era of creeping executive power-check out the details of the House Armed Services Committee's
new authorization bill. There is some pretty cool stuff in there on an
alternative career track for commissioned officers (as Abu Mook noted), Service energy initiatives, and bolstered
counter-ideology and Special Ops activities.
Another thing to watch is Rep. Gene Taylor's determined effort to get the Navy to share with
Congress its analysis of alternatives on the next generation ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN-X) slated to replace existing Ohio-class subs. Taylor
recognizes that the $85 billion SSBN-X fleet will make dollars scarce for other shipbuilding
programs, including the surface combatants built in his district. He has been
wondering aloud whether a smaller,
cheaper Virginia-class-style submarine armed with a new, smaller ballistic
missile could still provide the range, payload, and performance characteristics
required for sea-based strategic deterrence. Just promise that you won't
lead a crusade to fund an alternate submarine program, OK congressman?
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE