Gates is Wrong in Calling Pentagon Budget Cuts "Mistake"

As Secretaries of Defense go, Robert Gates has been pretty good for America. Compared to his predecessors Messrs. McNamara, Cheney and Rumsfeld, he is an absolute genius. However, he appears to have gone native and is now arguing that the Pentagon be spared the kind of budget cuts needed for financial health in America and for sparking a reassessment of America's defense needs.

In discussing America's military capabilities, Gates told an audience at the Marines' Memorial Club in San Francisco yesterday, "It will be critically important to sustain those capabilities in the future. Yet in the coming years, the pressure will undoubtedly be great to repeat that mistake and to reduce our spending on defense." He noted that four times in the last century America has reduced military spending after a major conflict, claiming that doing so gutted national security institutions.

Following World War I, that is, indeed, what happened. However, America was merely returning to its pre-war, 19th century stance of having a rather small military establishment. After World War II, America reduced military spending because the Nazis and Japanese fascists were gone -- the Cold War would likely have happened whether America cut spending or not. Following Vietnam, a similar reduction occurred; since America no longer had 500,000 men in southeast Asia, such spending was unnecessary. And after the Cold War, America could spend less because the genuine Soviet threat became a merely potential Russian threat.

Now to be fair to Mr. Gates, he is not opposed to reducing the spending at the Pentagon entirely. He figures he can cut $100 billion over 5 years, not exactly pocket change, but not a serious set of cuts either. Bloomberg reports, "Gates is seeking to supplement the planned defense budget growth of 1 percent over inflation with enough savings to allow annual increases of 2 percent to 3 percent for the forces and modernization of weapons."

One believes instead that a 10% cut to military spending over 5 years is feasible, that savings of $200 billion is possible despite that, and that $200 billion can go farther in modernizing weaponry than Mr. Gates is currently planning. First and foremost, America needs to realize that a military that becomes a burden on the economy that provides its logistical needs is a military that eventually will fail to have the logistical support it requires. Second, the US spends more than the next 18 military powers in the world, accounting for 46.5% of global military spending (China is second with 6.6%). Third, America's military is woefully inadequate to tackle asymmetrical warfare despite almost a decade of fighting Al Qaeda.

Here's what Mr. Gates should consider. Spend on personnel, especially linguists, cultural anthropologists and experts in history and the humanities. The military needs to develop human intelligence assets. Next, get rid of Cold War armaments. There are 18 aircraft carriers in the world and 13 are American. The British have 2 and the French have 1. China has zero. Russia's only carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is hardly seaworthy. America could scrap 6 of these with minimal loss of security against an enemy that fights in the mountains of Afghanistan (hard to put a carrier there). America's nuclear deterrent is about 9,000 warheads too many. And far too much money is spent on contractors like Blackwater (renamed Xe, but a rose by any other name . . . ).

America can cut the military budget and actually increase its security if its leaders are smart about it. Mr. Gates is smart enough, but he needs to reassess his position. Deeper cuts will force the military into the 21st century and make the country more secure.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home