• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • An Adequate Defense Budget for a Full-Spectrum Force

     Electrician Jimmy Parker, installs cables into the cockpit of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft at the Lockheed-Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas, Thursday, October 4, 2007.

    Major 2010 defense budget cuts expected to be announced by Secretary Gates today are part of a broader theme laid out in last year’s National Defense Strategy and his Foreign Affairs article seeking more “balance” in the military’s equipment portfolio away from high-end systems to fight conventional wars and more toward counterinsurgency capabilities.

    In the Post-Cold War world, however, the United States has chosen through numerous defense strategies to embrace a global vision of the world consistent with broad interpretations of its national interests and international priorities. In short, America has accepted its position as the world’s sole superpower and set a consistent framework for America’s military.

    Assuming the future will likely mirror the present or recent past is flawed—particularly given global uncertainty and America’s dismal track record for wrongly predicting the future. Instead, the United States must hedge against uncertainty by retaining a core set of military capabilities that can win in any type of future conflict. These capabilities include air superiority, a Navy that can project force throughout the maritime domain, space and cyberspace dominance, and proficiency in both traditional land warfare and the irregular missions like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The Obama administration has made clear current wars are likely to be an indication of the “hybrid” threats the nation will face in the future—even though these threats are nothing new. In Iraq, the U.S. fought a conventional war to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and later fought a counterinsurgency to protect civilians from insurgent attacks, terrorist bombs, and sectarian militias while standing up Iraqi forces. Likewise, Israel fought a hybrid conflict against Hezbollah in 2006 that showed the growing sophis¬tication of this asymmetric threat to the West.

    Unfortunately, the conventional platforms used by the Navy and Air Force will almost assuredly continue to serve as billpayers for the shift toward acquiring more irregular warfare capabilities, including:

    • DDG-1000 destroyer
    • Ballistic missiles defense systems
    • Long-range bomber
    • Army Future Combat Systems’ network and vehicles
    • Next-generation tanker
    • Future cruiser
    • CVN Ford-class aircraft carrier and a carrier wing
    • Transformational Communications Satellite program and

    It remains a sad irony that so-called “hard” budget choices are always those that seek to cut defense modernization budgets rather than advocate the less popular position to increase the defense budget based on current military requirements and a dramatically stressed and aged force.

    Only by increasing the modernization budget can the United States continue to field a military force trained and equipped to meet its national interests and global responsibilities. Failing to invest adequately, or worse, pursuing a military force that is ill-prepared for the future, is a path towards relinquishing American primacy.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to An Adequate Defense Budget for a Full-Spectrum Force

    1. Pingback: Obama Defense Budget: Gates Budget is Carter-esque » Right Pundits

    2. Pingback: Defense Budget Cut » Blue Star Chronicles

    3. Dave, Florida says:

      Independent of opinion for specific military programs it must be realized that these programs provide the last bastion of technology jobs in the USA, due to our seriously flawed 'free trade' foreign policy.

      During a major Recession/Depression it is not the time to cut the American Technology Workforce; restructure the procurement process, yes of course, but not cutting technology programs other then the stupid Bush-Driven purchase a foreign made presidential helicopter.

      The F22 is superior aircraft to the F35 and is needed to replace the aging F15's that are old and have been developing fatigue cracks.

      The tanker contract must be from an American supplier, but probably more along the lines of a dual use aircraft having both transport and fuel supply capability such as the French proposed –although it was not asked for.

      And what about Army plans to protect troops in the future? Did we all not hear the recent cry about lack of body armor in Iraq?

    4. Jerome Zacny says:

      It bears repeating, this country will never be taken over in a war, in the end we will have just given it away.

    5. Marshall Hill MI. says:

      We only know how to respond after the Fact!

    6. Pingback: Across the Aisle » Up is Down, Increases are Cuts: Newspeak and the Department of Defense

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×