AmerCon : Military : Funding

Baltimore Sun
2005.02.11

Half a trillion dollars -- and change

Author: Loren Thompson

WASHINGTON -- This week's revelation that the Bush administration will probably spend
half a trillion dollars on defense next year attracted surprisingly little attention. Network
news broadcasts gave the story a minute or two and major newspapers buried it, no doubt
sharing the view of Brookings Institution scholar Michael O'Hanlon that there was "less
here than meets the eye."

But the lack of interest may say more about how Donald H. Rumsfeld has rearranged
popular expectations during his four years as defense secretary than it does about the
substance of the budget. The proposed Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2006 is the latest
installment in a revolution that is transforming every facet of American military power.

That revolution has so many moving pieces that Mr. Rumsfeld may be the only person in
the administration who fully grasps the overall plan. But that doesn't change the fact that
he is reshaping everything about America's military at once, in a process that is both
exciting and risky. So it's worth taking some time to understand the key features of the
budget.

First, the proposed military budget is huge. Pundits peg its size at only 4 percent
of the economy, but when you add all the parts together -- nuclear weapons
spending in the Energy Department and so-called supplemental appropriations
outside the normal budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the total is likely
to be bigger than the entire economy of Russia.

Russia was once thought to be America's equal in military power, but the World Bank's
latest estimate of the size of its economy (for 2003) is $433 billion, which is less than the
administration is seeking for the military even with the costs of Iraq excluded. It's possible
that Iraq and Afghanistan will cost less next year than the $100 billion extra the
administration is seeking this year, but total military spending will still exceed half a trillion
dollars because the administration's plan takes the Pentagon budget up $20 billion more
each year through 2009.

Second, the proposed budget really is part of a long-term transformation plan that traces
its origins to George W. Bush's first run for the presidency. In a campaign speech Sept. 23,
1999, Mr. Bush declared that he would give his defense secretary "a broad mandate to
challenge the status quo and envision a new architecture for American defense."

Mr. Rumsfeld has embraced that mandate with passion. Among other things, he is
reorienting the military's investment plans to stress military applications for high-capacity
wireless networks and spy satellites; reorganizing military units to stress versatility and
quick response; rewriting personnel policy to free up soldiers from desks for war-fighting;
closing scores of domestic and overseas bases no longer needed; and forcing the military
services to cooperate closely rather than duplicating each others' capabilities. The budget
funds all of these initiatives.

Third, the budget reflects Mr. Rumsfeld's determination to challenge bureaucratic interests
that have lost touch with military needs. Programs and facilities that don't fit his framework
for future warfare are targeted for big cuts, including every type of warship, six of the
military's seven aircraft production lines and a number of munitions. Meanwhile, space and
communications initiatives that have little political constituency are being greatly increased.

That's something of a surprise, since the programs and bases targeted are mostly in
Republican states. But from the very beginning, Mr. Rumsfeld has refused to play the
congressional game of "going along to get along," and as a result, he has ruffled the
feathers of many in Congress.

Finally, the most worrisome feature of the proposed budget is its fealty to fashionable
ideas about the future. Mr. Rumsfeld's budget is a highly ideological document, not
in the sense of being conservative, but in the sense of assuming that the old way
of waging war is gone for good.

So the budget cuts funding for air and sea power while preparing for an era of information
warfare. Unfortunately, air and sea power are areas where America can hope to
dominate, while other countries will be able to match America in networked
warfare. Thus, even if Mr. Rumsfeld's vision of tomorrow is true, all those trillions of dollars
may not deliver military superiority over the long run.
_____

Loren Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and teaches security
studies at Georgetown University.