ConservativeHome's Platform

Rep. Mike Turner: National Security cuts a cause for concern in final debt deal

Congressman Mike Turner is the US Representative for Ohio's 3rd congressional district.

For months, Congress has been debating how to deal with the economic questions surrounding an increase in our debt limit. At a time when foreign nations own nearly $4.5 trillion of our $14.2 trillion debt – proposed cuts in the recently passed deal could have serious implications for our national security.  That’s why I was concerned that national security funding would be subject to an initial $175 billion cut in the final version of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Throughout this debate I have advocated for our government to cut current spending and cap it at a responsible level so that we may balance our budget. We must remember though that in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers empowered Congress to: "Provide for the common Defense… To raise and support Armies … (and) To provide and maintain a Navy." Fulfilling that obligation and meeting our budgetary responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. As a nation we should be able to provide for our defense and balance our budget. One should not come at the expense of the other.

This is a critical moment for both our nation and our armed forces. We have servicemembers deployed overseas in support of a number of military and humanitarian operations including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Those operations over the past 10 years have taken a toll on our forces. Currently, the Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now, while the Marines need $12 billion. Our men and women in uniform are not only being asked to make further sacrifices with additional deployments, but in some cases they’re relying on equipment which is often older than they are. For example, Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. In addition the Air Force is relying on bombers averaging 34 years in age and is refueling aircraft with tankers that are nearly 50 years old. 

An additional point of concern is that further cuts to defense are being used as a bargaining chip in a yet to be named Congressional “super-committee.” Twelve members of Congress from the House and Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, are required to find an additional $1.8 trillion in cuts. If the committee deadlocks on an agreement, or fails to complete its work by November 23^rd of this year – then $281 billion in additional defense cuts automatically take effect. These cuts are unspecified and are an arbitrary number chosen to pressure the “super-committee” members into crafting an inadequate deal in fear of these cuts being enacted. I voted against this bill because I could not support a process which circumvents the normal legislative process and gambles with our national security.

Our military remains strong and morale among servicemembers remains high, but we cannot continue to operate with a strained force or we will not be able to meet the obligations of the future. In fact, the Vice-Chiefs of Staff of each of our braches of the military echoed this same sentiment at a hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated that some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.”  Furthermore, additional proposed cuts of $281 billon in the bill would result in a "fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force."

Our national defense has always been a bipartisan issue in the halls of Congress. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize the role our military plays in both protecting this nation, and advancing the goals of our foreign policy. Subjecting this integral piece of our government to cuts, without thorough debate in committee and on the House floor, sets a dangerous precedent.

Let's hope the new Republican leadership sees that a new world order is emerging without American leadership or a clear design

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).  

The new Start Treaty embodies, in my judgment, the emerging mood in American security policy circa 2011. As the preamble to the treaty indicates the Russians will have a veto over the deployment of anti-missile systems. Despite President Obama’s assurance to the Senate that this will not be a unilateral concession, the Russian diplomats see it differently. After all, this is not a treaty between the United States Senate and the president.

Since the Reagan negotiations in Iceland, missile defense has been a U.S. trump card in all strategic discussions. Defense changes the correlation of forces, a point made axiomatic by the Russian unwillingness to accept deployment. But Reagan remained steadfast as did his successors – until now. The preemptive capitulation on radars in Poland and the Czech Republic was the first sign of a new strategic direction and the resistance to force modernization is confirmation of the president’s tack.

On a larger global stage these decisions suggest American withdrawal, both a physical withdrawal from international commitments and a psychological withdrawal from the U.S. role as world policeman. It is already clear that the withdrawal from Iraq will soon be completed and the withdrawal from Afghanistan will be accelerated this year. What this military vacuum creates may be in the realm of speculation at this point, but surely Iran, as the region’s “strong horse,” will gain advantage at our expense.

While a butterfly fluttering its wings in one part of the globe, may not affect events in another region, this can, and often does, occur. You can be sure that the Chinese, who have developed a formidable blue water navy, have been biding their time, waiting for a downgrade in U.S. capability and our willingness to influence Asian affairs.

In an effort to compensate for the lack of U.S. assertiveness, the Obama administration – inclined to a form of transnational progressivism – has relied more heavily than was previously the case on U.N. intervention. Yet it is clear from the use of the veto in the Security Council to an air of anti-Americanism in the General Assembly that U.S. interests cannot be promoted in this multilateral body. The consequence, of course, is that a new world order is emerging without American leadership or a clear design.

This is most effectively seen in American paralysis over prospective Iranian nuclear weapons. Torn between roll back and deterrence; confused over sanctions and negotiations, the U.S. seems unsure of its position. Moreover, this Obama administration has convinced itself and several Arab states that a peace treaty between the Palestinian territory and Israel will make it easier to clamp down on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Of course, this is fatuous on several levels. Iran’s surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas, do not want peace with Israel and Iran can use this anti-zionist sentiment to foster alliances within radical political groups in the region.

While I am both perplexed and pessimistic about directions in American foreign policy, the hearings announced with the new Republican House leadership are a welcome additions to the national debate. It is doubtful the Obama administration will adopt a new course of action, but it is noteworthy that the American people will have the opportunity to consider alternative tactics.

Foreign policy may not be the bread and butter issue that determines campaign success. However, it is the matter that can determine the triumph of nations and international stability. This is a moment to revisit the deployments that served American interests with an honest discussion of pros and cons. In an atmosphere uniformly bleak, this may be all that passes for a ray of sunshine. 

Ted Bromund: the defense budget is not just about numbers, it's about American values and exceptionalism - which we neglect at our peril

Dr. Ted Bromund is the Margaret Thatcher Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom in the Heritage Foundation.

There has been quite a bit of public debate about whether the defense budget should be cut along with the rest of the government as we get our deficit under control. This debate usually begins at the wrong end of the argument. The U.S. spends money on its armed forces in order to fulfill the Constitutionally-mandated requirement to provide for the common defense, and because, like all democracies, it has interests it seeks to advance.  These interests are not simply material: because the U.S. was founded on the belief that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal, our interests are defined, in part, by our values.  Before critics blindly take a hacksaw to the defense budget, they should explain exactly how they propose to defend America’s citizens, interests, and values by spending less, or spell out precisely which of those responsibilities they plan to abandon.

It is important to recognize that the U.S.’s role in the world does not begin with its defense budget.  We have a substantial – though historically modest, in comparative terms – defense budget because we have substantial responsibilities.  No one can deny that Congress has larded the federal budget with pork, but recognizing that tells us nothing whatsoever about America’s responsibilities, and how much we must spend – efficiently and responsibly – to meet them.  The defense budget must be the manifestation of those responsibilities.  The closer we get to that ideal, the better off we will be.

As we approach the opening of a new Congress, every incoming representative should understand, and be able to articulate, our fundamental foreign policy priorities, because it is these priorities that should drive the debate on defense, and much more.  For foreign policy is not just about what the U.S. does with foreigners.  It shapes our security as individuals, affects our well-being as consumers, and defines our future as self-governing citizens.  Americans may not always care about foreign policy, but foreign policy cares about them.

The first duty of American foreign policy is to ensure the United States remains a sovereign and independent nation.  Nothing was closer to the hearts of the Founding Fathers, and nothing should matter more to us.  Sovereignty is a complicated word for a simple idea: it means that we make our own laws, define our own policies, and shape our own future.  It means that here, the people rule.  It would be a serious mistake to believe that American sovereignty will endure forever simply because it was established in 1776.  America’s sovereignty will last just as long as we care for it, and no longer.

The U.S. needs to do more, not less, when it comes to defense, and our budget needs to meet the challenge

Thomas G. Mahnken is a Visiting Scholar at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Between 2006 and 2009, he served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for policy planning. In that capacity, he advised the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on strategy and planning.

The United States needs to get its fiscal house in order.  The long-term health of the American economy, and the long-term wellbeing of Americans, demands it.  What is less clear is the extent to which cuts in defense spending should be part of any package to do so.  Too often, the question has been posed in economic terms: how much we can “afford” to spend on defense?  The question should more properly be formulated in terms of U.S. national security: how much should the United States spend in order to protect the United States and its citizens from the challenges of today and tomorrow?

The answer to this question came in late July, when the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel delivered its report to Congress.  The 20-member panel, chaired by former Clinton administration Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Bush administration National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, included former senior officials from Democratic and Republican administrations as well as retired senior officers. I served on its staff.  The group argued forcefully that if the United States is to continue play the international role it has for more than half a century, then we may need to do more, not less, when it comes to national defense. 

The panel found "a significant and growing gap between the ‘force structure' of the military -- its size and its inventory of equipment -- and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future." The panel's members were particularly concerned that the force structure outlined in the Obama Administration’s  2010 Quadrennial Defense Review "may not be sufficient to assure others that the United States can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China's increased military capabilities." The report calls for an increase in U.S. force structure in the Pacific to counter Chinese military modernization, noting, "A robust US force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but including other necessary capabilities, will be essential."

It is powerful statement that a group of 20 senior officials who have served Democratic and Republican presidents agreed that "the [U.S.] force structure needs to be increased in a number of areas, including the need to counter anti-access challenges; strengthen homeland defense, including cyber threats; and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions. It must also be modernized." They called for an increase in the size of the U.S. Navy, the acquisition of a next-generation bomber, and new long-range strike systems. They also acknowledge that although the Defense Department must do everything it can to achieve cost savings on acquisition and overhead, "substantial additional resources will be required to modernize the force. Although there is a cost to recapitalizing the military, there is also a price to be paid for not re-capitalizing, one that in the long run would be much greater."

The panel did point to areas of potential cost savings, however. For example, it tackled the sensitive issue of the Defense Department's rising personnel costs, noting that "a failure to address the increasing costs of the all-volunteer force will likely result in a reduction in the force structure, a reduction in benefits or a compromised all-volunteer force."  It also laid out ways to streamline and cut the cost of acquiring new weapon systems.  Both should be pursued vigorously.

Americans should welcome an honest debate over defense spending.  But to be honest, such a debate should revolve around the role the United States should play in the world and the value of maintaining it.