The mission should determine the defense budget; the defense budget should not determine the mission
By Marc Thiessen
At the start of the war on terror, the Bush administration had a mantra: “The mission determines the coalition; the coalition should not determine the mission.” If America wants to remain a superpower, the same should be true when it comes to the defense budget: The mission should determine the budget; the budget should not determine the mission.
Today, Barack Obama unveiled a new defense strategy which does precisely the opposite.
Our mission in the coming decade should be to prevail in the current war (which, pace the president, is not yet over), while preparing to defeat and deter the potential adversaries we may face in the decades ahead. While the president says the “tide of war is receding,” he cannot know this for certain. We could face any number of conflicts in the years to come that are not of our choosing:
• A North Korea destabilized by the death of Kim Jong Il could provoke a military crisis with the West.
• If al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula finally succeeds in carrying out a major attack on the American homeland, we could find ourselves with boots on the ground in Yemen just as we did in Afghanistan after 9/11.
• In the same vein, if al Qaeda’s increasingly dangerous affiliate in East Africa, al Shabab, attacks us we could see American forces in major combat operations there.
• And, as we learned on Sept. 11, 2001, new and unexpected threats can emerge suddenly to surprise us. The last five American presidents — Reagan (Grenada), Bush 41 (Kuwait), Clinton (Kosovo), Bush 43 (Afghanistan, Iraq), and Obama (Libya) — all found themselves engaged in military conflicts they did not anticipate before taking office.
But the Obama strategy unveiled today is not driven by an imperative to prepare for any of this. It is driven by the president’s determination to make drastic cuts to the defense budget, regardless of the realities and dangers of the world around him. The budget is determining the mission, when it should be the other way around.
Some of the damage that will be done by these cuts is irreversible. A shipyard or aircraft production facility closed because of program cancellations will not be there when we are ready to buy ships and planes again. Indeed, Boeing announced today that it is closing its plant in Wichita because of the Obama defense cuts — and more such closures from other defense contractors are sure to follow. Today’s decisions will erode our defense industrial base irrevocably.
And we will lose something else that quite literally cannot be replaced: The most capable, battle-hardened military forces in the history of the world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq provided our troops with unparalleled combat experience that cannot be gained through any peacetime training. Under the Obama plan, we will push tens of thousands of those experienced forces out the door. The Army will be cut by 70,000 troops, back to nearly pre-9/11 levels. Once those troops have left for civilian life, their experience and expertise are gone for good.
Beyond this damage, this austerity-driven strategy sends a signal of weakness to our adversaries, which makes it far more likely that they will challenge us in the years to come. We have failed to learn one of the key lessons of 9/11: that weakness is provocative.
The irony is that Obama will not be stuck with the consequences of most of the decisions he announced today. Presidents rarely benefit from, or suffer as a result of, the defense budget decisions they make in office. Just as President Bush inherited a military decimated by the defense cuts of the 1990s, Obama inherited a military strengthened by the Bush defense increases. Now he has declared his intention to squander that inheritance, and leave his successor with no choice but to fight or deter the wars of the future with the army he has.
But there is one big difference: At least the Clinton administration claimed its “peace dividend” at a time of peace. Obama is claiming his while America is still at war.
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/the-mission-should-determine-the-defense-budget-the-defense-budget-should-not-determine-the-mission/
∆∆
| 
