News

On the broader strategic front Lieberman told the Foreign Policy Initiative conference that he consistently hears from allies “unmistakable uncertainty about our staying power.” His comment echoed recent statements by Sen. McCain, Rep. Buck McKeon, presumptive chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and a host of commentators that America may be in a state of global decline. Addressing and correcting what he clearly believes is a misperception, Lieberman said, “is in our national interest.” The recent report issued by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments tackled this argument head on.

Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said, “This report should be a wake-up call to anyone in DoD who didn’t already know this was coming. Our budget problems are serious, and fixing them is going to require sacrifices in all parts of government.”

Todd Harrison believes that [the commission co-chairs] intended this draft release as a starting point for a discussion. “If you look at what they did beyond defense spending, about $400 bln. in total  savings in the year 2015 to help reduce the deficit. And it is split almost  equally between defense, non-defense discretionary, mandatory and tax revenue. So they really spread this around,” he pointed out.

Eric Edelman, an undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, says that Afghanistan has shown the limits of what NATO can do. In “Understanding America’s Contested Primacy”, a pamphlet for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think-tank, he argues that although NATO still has value as a regional alliance, for demographic, economic and cultural reasons it will be increasingly hard pressed “to generate substantial useful military capability”. He recommends developing partnerships with countries such as India, Brazil and Australia, which may be willing and able to do more than America’s traditional allies, and which are in parts of the world that reflect today's security preoccupations.

The Fiscal Commission draft report is unlikely to be fully enacted by Congress, but its findings could still influence the fate of several defense programs by giving ammunition to those who are gunning for new efficiencies no matter what.  The report’s recommendation to cancel the Marines’ EFV, for example, is “another nail in the coffin” for the long-gestating vehicle, says Dakota Wood of CSBA. “It certainly does seem there is a mounting set of issues, factors that do not bode well for the EFV,” Wood told Morning Defense. “My guess is the vehicle is going to be canceled.” Plus, senators have already primed the EFV for oblivion: In an unusual, but not completely unprecedented move, the Senate version of this year’s appropriations bill sets aside more than $183 million “for estimated termination costs should the program be canceled.”

According to Defense News, Chairman of the Defense Business Board Michael Bayer  said this means DoD will need to shift about $123 billion, rather than the original $103 billion to weapons programs, as Gates has prescribed to realize at least 1 percent growth in the defense budget over the next few years. But another Pentagon adviser, Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, was skeptical of even those gains. “Gates may be able to hold on for a while,” he said, but predicted that “once the long knives come out,” DoD will have to reduce its budget “to address the nation’s fiscal situation.”