DoD propaganda against the Budget Control Act’s sequester is remarkably shameless even for them. First, the ‘draconian’ cuts are anything but. They return DoD to Bush’s 2007 defense budget. DoD will get funded at the same level as at the height of a two-failed war bubble adjusted for inflation. Second, Obama (Romney?) ‘war’ outlays are specifically exempted. Sequester is not a ‘stab in the back’ to the ‘warfighter'(although it will be sold as such). Third, even if sequester is triggered this year, no budget cuts take effect until 2013 and can be postponed.
Sequester is an assault on DoD and its contractors’ privileged socio-economic position. Sure, debate will be framed in terms of ‘national security’. The truth? It’s about rice bowls, careers and status. And thus all the more fierce.
Sequester per Panetta = killing F-35, new bomber, LCS and Ground Combat Vehicle. This is 'a disaster'? #Panetta #DoDBudgetBloat
— Leo Strauss (@DrLeoStrauss) June 15, 2012
The DoD 2010 budget marked the apotheosis of American mindless spending on ‘national security’. So in that sense, returning to 2007 means a little over 10% cut. This reveals how Obama merely tinkered with Bush’s war economy.
What do 2007 budgets (adjusted for inflation) mean? Bush DoD budgets marked a 31% increase over Clinton outlays plus the additional, off-the-books outlays for the two-failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Panetta and company claim sequester will cut this or that favorite weapons program. Not actually true. Sequester specifically permits DoD to move moneys among accounts (which it already does anyway). Thus, DoD can make priority allocations within the double-war 2007 budget (adjusted for inflation) for programs, agencies, etc. DoD naturally doesn’t want to choose.
Should sequester happen, how ‘unprecedented’ are the cuts? Not very. After 1991, a bi-partisan consensus reduced DoD demands on the American economy by almost 35% from the Reagan years. Post-Vietnam saw not dissimilar ratios. Sequester would not match those levels.
The problem for DoD is that people represent its largest long term cost. And the Force is not going to change in size much. No cost savings there. Thus, the cuts have to come from elsewhere.
What did grow under Bush/Obama is procurement, R&D and contractor outsourcing. (Along with global mission creep). Under Bush/Obama, procurement outlays are up almost 100% since 2000. Some went to immediate war theater needs. Much of it squandered by a broken (deliberately by industry collusion with Rummy) oversight and procurement process.
We wrote years ago here about the Pentagon’s scissors crisis for procurement (one example of many). Reagan-era platforms predictably were burned out through increased OPTEMPO. DoD failed to field generational replacements. You, Dear Reader, know about cost overruns re the F-22, the Army’s Future Combat System, or the absurd $1.5 trillion F-35. The broken procurement system is endemic.
Sequester might force two important policy objectives. One: DoD and its parasites must acknowledge they’re not immune to American economic circumstances. And two: DoD will have no choice but to get serious about acquisition reform and accept oversight with consequences. DoD and industry both want neither beyond superficial gestures.
12 years of Bush/Obama have so thoroughly militarized us and enshrined the false image of ‘warfighter’/national security apparatchik as untouchable, sanctified nobility. A rational conversation about American geostrategic commitments and interests, and allocation of resources accordingly is laughable.
Normally, a mature great power and healthy liberal democracy should avoid a sequester process. It’s a blunt instrument cost shifting congressional institutional failure into national security frameworks. From 1949-2000, civilians and the military in conversation resolved strategic footprints and their associated political economies with varying success. It’s our preferred process and the reason we initially opposed sequester.
You decide – America 2012 – how mature or healthy?
Francisco says
Panetta bemoans that some nationwide protection Nomenklatura might be fired if sequester happens. Experience his pain?
bariatric surgery mexico
Dr Leo Strauss says
This item from the F-22 cancellation has some nice phrases. The Manstein and Kharkov bit still rings true.
http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/shot-to-thrill-way-to-kill/
Dr Leo Strauss says
61% of funds to improve DoD acquisition and hire new oversight personnel have not been spent since 2008.
http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2012/06/pentagon-expansion-acquisition-staff-hurt-funding-uncertainties/56403/
How serious are Panetta and DoD about acquisition reform? Exactly.
DrLeoStrauss says
Panetta bemoans that some national security Nomenklatura might be laid off if sequester happens. Feel his pain?
Mr.Jane - HealthCare says
I used to be able to find good info from your blog posts.
Dr Leo Strauss says
Obama OMB revises Budget Control Act and adds war funding back into sequester to push Congress into acting.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/233051-white-house-fires-back-on-war-cuts-tells-congress-to-do-its-job