At the end of January, two documents were released by the Pentagon: "Defense Budget Priorities and Choices" and "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense." Together, these documents propose radical changes to the posture and size of the U.S. military. With an epicenter at the Pentagon, these documents have created rumblings that reach from the Senate Armed Forces Committee all the way to the Ministry of National Defense in China.
The two documents complement each other by proposing much needed reforms to the bloated total of $487 billion over the next decade. The cuts reduce the military's ground forces and military contractors. They prolong large weapons systems acquisitions, and will shut down bases. Cuts are not being made across the board, however. Special Forces, cyber warfare technology, long−range bombers, drones and aircraft carriers will either retain their current spending levels or receive a boost in funding.
The budget cuts were not decided arbitrarily. Decreasing America's military footprint while at the same time maintaining its naval superiority clearly reflects the priorities of the Pentagon for the 21st century. The document "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense" states that the armed forces will be making a strategic shift toward Asia and away from long term counter insurgency operations. The boost in Special Forces will ensure that the United States will be able to project force anywhere it would like, yet with a lighter footprint.
Regrettably, it took a global economic recession for the United States military to take a hard look in the mirror and realize that it was staring back at an obese behemoth with an unlimited food stamp. While these cuts are not as dramatic as some people called for, they are the best, most suitable changes for today's political climate.
Instead of the haphazard and partisan legislation that has come out of Washington recently, these cuts are an example of sound governance. By pairing the cuts with a clear strategy that asserts America's continuing dominance and challenges China, they become much easier to swallow for Republican hawks and crusty Generals. This does not mean, however, that the cuts will go through without a fight. Hawks have already cried out against the budget cuts, saying that they are reducing our ability to act and to deter threats.
The new posture of the military is a refreshing move. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven the difficulty of counter−insurgency operations for a military facing a completely different security environment than the Cold War, bipolar world with which it was previously familiar. Using the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps for nation building has strained our soldiers through multiple long−term deployments, and a heavy dependence on reserve forces has ensured that everyone is placed under pressure. It's time for the United States to use technological and covert means to project its power, instead of forcing its ground forces to play the triple role of fighter, USAID development worker and Foreign Service Officer.
A shift toward Asia and away from Europe is also a step in the right direction. There is no need for the United States to have thousands of troops be forwardly deployed on European soil. Their withdrawal will not cause a nuclear arms race in Europe as John Mearsheimer predicted toward the end of the Cold War. It's time for Europe to secure more of its own defense, instead of relying on the United States to provide it for them. Europe can build up its own defense without reverting to nuclear weapons because of the existence of NATO. In other words, no matter how many American troops leave European soil, NATO will always bind the United States to Europe through a collective strategic vision and the integration of armed forces. The forward deployment of United States forces in Europe is a legacy of the Cold War that these budget cuts and strategic shift are starting to reverse.
The part of the budget cuts that is hardest to reconcile are the cuts in pay and benefits for members of the military. In a recession, everybody has to take a hit, and unfortunately the women and men who put their lives on the line for the United States are not immune. The cuts are not drastic, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has maintained, yet future members of the armed forces will be paying more for their healthcare with a smaller paycheck. According to the magazine Foreign Policy, Panetta is also appointing a committee to restructure the military's retirement plan. To offset these cuts to personal benefits, I believe that the American public should redouble its efforts in welcoming soldiers back home and ensuring that they have the proper services available to them for a smooth transition into civilian life. A chilling statistic reminds us of the importance of this; currently, one in three homeless males in the United States is a veteran.
The budget cuts and new strategic vision of the Pentagon are two steps in the right direction toward ensuring American primacy. Preventing wasteful defense spending allows for the allocation of funds for education and other critical sectors. It will be fascinating to see how these changes play out in America's foreign policy in the coming decade. As a civilian it is easy for me to make this analysis; I invite a response from a military perspective. If these issues interest you, come to the EPIIC Symposium on Feb. 22−26 and speak your mind.
