Archive for Friday, January 27, 2012

Pentagon: Army, Marines to shrink as budget slows

January 27, 2012


— The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war costs. It drew quick criticism from Republicans, signaling the difficulty of scaling back defense budgets in an election year.

The changes Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described at a news conference are numerous but hardly dramatic. They aim to save money by delaying some big-ticket weapons like a next-generation nuclear-armed submarine, but the basic shape and structure of the military remains the same.

The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia.

Panetta said the administration will ask Congress for $525 billion to run the Pentagon in 2013 — $6 billion less than the current budget. War costs, which are not considered part of the base budget, would decline from $115 billion to $88 billion, reflecting the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The base budget would then increase in each year of the Pentagon’s five-year plan, reaching $567 billion in 2017. A year ago the Pentagon had projected 2017 spending to reach $622 billion. The Pentagon counts those reductions in projected future spending as “defense savings.”

When Obama took office in January 2009 the Pentagon’s base budget was $513 billion. In 2001 it was $297 billion.

Under a budget deficit-cutting deal Congress made last summer, the Pentagon is committed to reducing projected spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. The plan Panetta presented Thursday covers the first five years of that span and would cut a cumulative total of $259 billion in planned spending.

“We believe this is a balanced and complete package,” Panetta said.

In a bid to pre-empt election-year Republican criticism, Panetta said the plan begins to shift the Pentagon’s focus from the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. More special operations forces like the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden will be available around the world, he said, and the Pentagon will stress improvements in cyberdefenses.

Republicans were quick to pounce on the proposed Army and Marine Corps reductions.

“These cuts reflect President Obama’s vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McKeon voted for the bill last August that established the requirement for $487 billion in defense savings over five years.

“Taking us back to a pre-9/11 military force structure places our country in grave danger,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that will hold hearings on the Pentagon budget plan.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Panetta plan “ignores the lessons of history.” He said it provides for a military that is “too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years.”

The military’s top general, however, defended the administration’s approach. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is convinced that the risks raised by cutting the size of the military are manageable. He said failing to make these changes would have meant even bigger risks.

“This budget is a first step — it’s a down payment — as we transition from an emphasis on today’s wars to preparing for future challenges,” he said, adding, “This budget does not lead to a military in decline.”


Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

According to Jan Schakowsky, losing 20,000 jobs is hardly worth thinking about.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending,"

If we're going to be truly serious about reducing budget deficits, there need to be dramatic reductions in military spending, not a slowing of growth. Spending for true defense, and not for an imperial war machine, is the only sane way forward.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Even with these numbers, we'll still be spending about 1/2 a trillion dollars on defense/military spending every year.

Isn't that enough?

How much do we have to spend on that really?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

The military-industrial complex's propaganda machine works 24/7 whipping up the paranoia and a belief in "American exceptionalism" required to keep the money flowing in-- when it comes to military spending, too much is never enough.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 3 months ago

Interesting. The Republicans are arguing against cuts to spending, because it is an election year, at the same time that they are trying to win office on a ticket of balancing the budget.

"Weakened"? Relative to what? Name any country that spends anywhere near what we spend. McKeon is saying we can't protect our interests unless we spend several times what any other country is spending on their military.

usnsnp 6 years, 3 months ago

Mabey if we organize all the people that have guns into local militia we would be able to call up theis units whenever the military needed more people. Remember the saying, the right to bear arms in a regulated militia. This way everyone would have some skin in the game, not just 1% of the population.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.