The Cold War Takes a Hit

Foreign Policy In Focus expert Miriam Pemberton and Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation analyst Travis Sharp respond to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s military budget.

The war that ended 20 years ago has lived on in a menu of weapons systems we have continued to develop, modify, and build at ever increasing cost, if not utility, since then. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' announcement of significant cuts in several of those systems signals that in a new administration and a severe fiscal crisis, this Cold War legacy may finally be winding down.

 

In his speech last month to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era systems we don't use." This budget makes a down-payment on that promise. It proposes the most ambitious set of cuts to well-entrenched weapons systems since the early ‘90s.

Among its targets:

• the F-22 fighter jet, which the most impressive p.r. campaign in history couldn't save;
• the DDG-1000 Destroyer, which the Navy tried to cancel last year;
• Future Combat Systems, which is lurching and straining under the weight of its enormous complication, unproven technology, and massive $150 billion price-tag.

 

At the same time, this budget perpetuates the overall upward trajectory of defense spending. Though Gates has been promising that "the spigot of defense spending after 9-11 is closing," this budget exceeds all of the Bush administration's budgets that preceded it. And it leaves barreling through the pipeline such unneeded programs as the Virginia Class submarine and the V-22 Osprey, which then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill in 1992. 

 

The Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States (USB) outlined [1] a set of $60.7 billion in reductions to the FY2009 defense budget, and made the case for why these cuts could be made with no sacrifice to our security. Here is how the Secretary's budget stacks up to those recommendations:

 

Scorecard - Gates's Proposed Cuts vs. Unified Security Budget Recommendations
	Administration's FY 2009 Request	USB Proposed Change	Gates's Proposed FY 2010 Budget
F/A-22 Raptor	4.1	-3.8	-4.1
Ballistic Missile Defense	10.5	-8.1	-1.4
Virginia-Class Submarine	3.6	-2.5	no change announced
DDG-1000	3.2	-3.2	as little as -1.5, as much as -3.2
V-22 Osprey	3.5	-3.0	no change announced
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)	0.3	-0.3	no change announced
F35 Joint Strike Fighter	6.7	-3.7	plus 4.4
Offensive Space Weapons	1.5	-1.4	-0.79
Future Combat Systems	3.6	-2.1	minus 0.77, plus 87 billion in future savings for cancelling ground vehicle component
Research & Development	80.0	-5.0	n/a
Nuclear Forces	21.0	-15.6	no change announced
Force Structure	-	-5.0	no change announced, but 11 billion in future savings for one less carrier
Waste in Procurement and Business Operations	-	-7.0	n/a
Total		-60.7	8.6 to 10.3, with 98 billion in future savings
(figures in billions)

 

 

Thus, the cuts announced today represent a down-payment on the USB recommendations in the amount of between $8 and $10 billion.

 

It's a start. The president's commitments to negotiate a reduction in our nuclear arsenal down to 1000 warheads, and to get serious about acquisition reform, will bring more.

 

Meanwhile, preserving even these cuts will not be easy. This tree falling in the forest has made quite a sound, in the form of howls of protest from major contractors echoing through congressional halls even before Gates finished speaking.

  

Miriam Pemberton is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies [2], writing and speaking on demilitarization issues for its Foreign Policy In Focus [3] project. She leads a group that produces the yearly Unified Security Budget for the United States [4].

miriam@ips-dc.org [5]; (202) 234-9382 x 214 (o); (301) 367-2831 (c)

 

Travis Sharp is a military budget analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

tsharp@armscontrolcenter.org [6]; (202) 543-4100x2100

 

Foreign Policy In Focus [3] is a network for research, analysis and action that brings together more than 600 scholars, advocates and activists who strive to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington. www.fpif.org [3]

 

For more than four decades, the Institute for Policy Studies [2] has transformed ideas into action for peace, justice, and the environment. It is a progressive multi-issue think tank. www.ips-dc.org [7]