Thread: Proposed US Defense Budget Changes

Originally Posted by Mr. E

On the plus side, it is good that they are making significant defense budget cuts, as trimming the budget in a time like this is probably for the best, and it will give Obama more money to work with (I don't like what he's doing with a lot of the money he is using, but it is better for him to have enough money to actually roll things out than to have him half-ass programs that will need to be fixed later).

Sorry, I should have made this clear in the OP: Gates' defense budget proposal for next year does NOT entail an overall reduction in the size of the DOD's budget. In fact, it's actually $20 billion larger than this year's defense budget. Money will be cut from many programs, but just as much money will be added to other programs. So we're talking about a reshuffling of money within the DOD budget, away from high-tech weapons systems and towards counterinsurgency-oriented programs, rather than an actual spending cut.

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Ok I'll admit that I'm not the most weapons grade savvy in the room. Even with all these cost cuts, are we sacrificing quality? I mean upgrading might be cheaper, but if we put new wheels on a Model T, it's still outdated.

Yeah, kind of. But it's all a very complicated game of balancing need vs. cost within programs and between programs, both in response to current needs and in response to projected future needs. Sure, a brand-new system could offer superior capability in comparison to an upgraded existing system. But is the increased capability proportionate to the increased price, or are we paying five times as much for only twice the performance? And just how important is it to have maximum capability in that mission requirement, vs. all the other mission requirements that various other systems exist to fill? The DOD's budget is large but nevertheless finite, and there isn't enough money to buy the best possible equipment for every mission requirement. So choices have to be made on the basis of prioritization of needs.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Oh, well there goes that part of my statement...

In that case, I have to say this is awful, not to mention terribly pessimistic. Ideally in a few years we'll be out of those countries and won't have to deal with insurgents again for a very long time. It is poor strategy to take investments out of programs that will help us in the long term and pump those investments into solutions to a short-term problem that isn't even really that big of a problem.

Ahhhh.. the thing is, insurgency/guerrilla warfare is almost certainly not going to end once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, to a large degree, it is probably going to be one of the dominant modes of warfare in the 21st century. It's not like Iraq/Afghanistan are minor detours and we'll get back to fighting old-fashioned conventional wars afterwards. Iraq and Afghanistan show us what a lot of conflict is going to be like in the coming decades: Asymmetrical, non-linear, low-intensity, and fought against an unconventional or irregular enemy.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's important to preserve a strong conventional capability. Just because unconventional conflicts are going to be common in the coming decades doesn't mean conventional wars are a thing of the past. But that conventional capability has to be balanced with unconventional capabilities; we have to be able to do both well. I think the idea behind Gates' proposal is that our current defense budget is weighted too heavily towards conventional capabilities, to the detriment of our efforts in current and future unconventional conflicts, and he wants to move it more towards a balanced mid-point.

Originally Posted by Syme

Ahhhh.. the thing is, insurgency/guerrilla warfare is almost certainly not going to end once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, to a large degree, it is probably going to be one of the dominant modes of warfare in the 21st century. It's not like Iraq/Afghanistan are minor detours and we'll get back to fighting old-fashioned conventional wars afterwards. Iraq and Afghanistan show us what a lot of conflict is going to be like in the coming decades: Asymmetrical, non-linear, low-intensity, and fought against an unconventional or irregular enemy.

Call me an optimist, but I think so long as we don't stick our nose where it doesn't belong and don't do anything to make ourselves weaker (or look weaker) we probably won't have any more wars for a while. North Korea would be a threat, but they are too dumb to actually be legitimate, and if they keep on doing what they are doing the UN will eventually shut them down anyway. Iran would be a threat if they could possibly survive alienating themselves from the world (which they can't).

With a democrat in the White House we aren't going to be attacking anyone, and, strategically, the list of people who could legitimately attack us is a small list of people who would never do it, and China (who won't do it so long as they keep thinking our money is worth something).

EDIT: Well, that is a valid point about us being unbalanced. We proved that pretty quickly in Iraq. I can see moving some money out of combat vehicles and into personnel, but we don't want to overdo it either. I still think this move is too drastic. It would be better to make this a more gradual change if we're going to make it.

Optimism is fine, but I think history will show that most conflicts aren't seen coming even a few years before they break out. It may seem like we have a pretty clear horizon after we untangle ourselves from Iraq/Afghanistan, and I do share your hope that the US will keep it's nose out of places it doesn't need to go (e.g. Iraq), but as a realist and a history buff and a foreign policy wonk, I can't be enough of an optimist to believe that the US probably won't get involved in at least a few more conflicts over the next couple decades even if we don't see any potential wars looming right now. Even if no-one attacks us directly and we refrain from charging into pointless situations like Iraq, the chances of eventually being obligated to intervene in some situation overseas are pretty good, and that's exactly the sort of thing that can easily become a counterinsurgency scenario. For instance, I would not be surprised if US ground forces are operating in Pakistan by 2020.

Incidentally, one thing I'm really not worried about is China. It would take a series of drastic changes in Sino-American relations and the east Asian situation for the US and China to have any compelling reason to go to war. Also, I think China's military power in relation to our own is often heavily overestimated. We still have a incredibly huge lead over them, and even with the cuts Gates is proposing, we really shouldn't have any trouble maintaining that lead for a long time to come.

With specific regard to combat vehicles, I do agree that the vehicular components of FCS shouldn't be cut. It's not like armored vehicles aren't incredibly important even in counterinsurgency warfare, and current systems are all inadequate in one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

EDIT: Well, that is a valid point about us being unbalanced. We proved that pretty quickly in Iraq. I can see moving some money out of combat vehicles and into personnel, but we don't want to overdo it either. I still think this move is too drastic. It would be better to make this a more gradual change if we're going to make it.

I don't have numbers on hand, but I'd be willing to bet that even after the changes that Gates is proposing, the DOD will probably still be putting a lot more money per year towards conventional warfare capabilities (or universally useful capabilities) than towards capabilities that are only useful for counterinsurgency operations.


EDIT: Gah, already I'm defending this budget proposal. I'm going to hold off from posting in this thread again until tomorrow evening and see what other people have to say.