Sebastian Sprenger
Inside Defense, 21 April 2011
A group of internal advisers to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review warned Pentagon leaders in the fall of 2009 that the Obama administration's major examination of national defense requirements was based on too-rosy economic assumptions, according to Defense Department sources.
Members of a "red team" presented the critique to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a September 2009 report. Gates assembled the red team, led by then-U.S. Joint Forces Command chief Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis and Andrew Marshall, the director of the Office of Net Assessment, in the spring of 2009. The QDR report was made public in February 2010. Officials never released the red team's report.
The accounts of what one official called a "lack of fiscal reality" in the key defense review comes as President Obama mandated yet another self-examination of national security matters. "We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we're going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world," Obama said in an April 13 speech in Washington. "I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete."
Over the past years, Gates has fought with lawmakers over moves to save money throughout DOD, mainly aimed at improving efficiency throughout the defense bureaucracy. In his speech, Obama noted these recent efforts would yield savings of $400 billion in current and future defense spending, although some defense officials have privately questioned the figure.
The notion that DOD should contribute more budget cuts to tackle the galloping national debt significantly raises the bar for future cuts, hinting at a potential enormity that sources said was not considered in the QDR. "The issue was raised whether the future security environment was, in fact, bad enough," an official told InsideDefense.com. "The language of the [red team] report suggests that the economic downturn would be more prolonged and with a higher magnitude than presupposed within previous assumptions, and that this could impact tighter limits on defense spending in the future," the official added.
"What does it say about the QDR that we need a new review," said another official. "What does it say about strategic planning that we have all kinds of scenarios but not one for no fiscal growth?"
The ratings agency Standard & Poor's this week said the U.S. debt level could threaten Washington's top-notch credit rating. "Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable," S&P said in an April 18 statement.
This site is designed for use by researchers, educators, and students who seek access to its 2000+ military policy articles for research and/or educational purposes. Provided on a not-for-profit basis per 'fair use' rules.
23 April 2011
Gates: Review Will Likely Use QDR Threat Scenarios As Starting Point
Christopher J. Castelli
Inside Defense, 21 April 2011
The upcoming Pentagon assessment aimed at cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in defense spending will likely start with the same threat scenarios that informed the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, but will use a different process to reconsider the need for longstanding missions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today.
The department's classified depictions of threats to international security -- called defense-planning scenarios -- each include a corresponding mission for U.S. military forces and a strategic-level concept of operation for carrying out that mission. The Pentagon will likely use the scenarios as a starting point for examining options for eliminating missions, Gates told reporters.
"So it will start, probably, with the QDR in terms of the scenarios and then try to translate that into what are the programmatic implications as you begin to reduce the mission sets," he said.
The department could revisit its commitment to being able to fight two major conflicts at the same time, Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright said at the same Pentagon briefing.
"There's another element to this on the strategy side of it and that is, what is it you want to be able to do and how much of it do you want to be able to do, which gets to quantities and capabilities," Cartwright said. "And so starting with this strategy and understanding that historically the department has been a two-major-theater-war construct, etc. -- where do we want to be on that and then what are the implications of any changes in that, I think, are important questions you ask up front."
Whereas the QDR is a review of DOD strategy and priorities mandated by Congress, the new assessment, announced last week by President Obama, is aimed squarely at gleaning savings to reduce the federal deficit.
Giving the entire department "a haircut" by declaring "everybody is going to cut X percent" would be the "worst" approach, Gates said. "That's the way we got the hollow military in the 1970s and in the 1990s. And so I want to frame this so that options and consequences and risks are taken into account . . . as budget decisions are made, first by the president and then by the Congress." The new assessment will not be a compressed QDR, he noted.
"It won't be a mini-QDR," Gates said, "because I think what we have to do in structuring these options -- I mean, one approach that we talked about, and I haven't settled on which approach we're going to take, but one approach would be to take the scenarios in the QDR and translate those into forces: exactly what forces would be required to perform that range of missions."
That way, DOD could consider the implications of eliminating particular missions, he noted. "And then if you begin cutting off missions, if you begin saying OK, what if you didn't do this, what if you weren't able, what if you decided you didn't need to be able to fight two regional conflicts at the same time, then what are the implications of that for the force?" Gates said.
The White House has said it wants to slash security spending by $400 billion by fiscal year 2023, but Gates said it remains unclear exactly how much of those cuts DOD would shoulder.
"We don't know at this point," Gates said. "My cabinet colleagues are looking at me very suspiciously," he joked. "But no . . . that hasn't been worked out yet." DOD's planning for its review remains in the early stages, he noted.
"We have just gotten started on this," Gates said. "I've had one meeting to begin thinking about how we structure this." Gleaning substantial savings will be challenging for the department, the defense secretary stressed.
"There are those that argue if you funded the department at roughly inflation for the next 12 years that you would find this money," he said. "That may well be true. But some of our big-ticket items are items that don't fall within that category: healthcare, fuel costs and there are others like that. We have some investments that we have to make."
The necessary investments include the Air Force's new tanker program, as well as the coming need to replacing aging Navy warships that were built during the Reagan administration and are slated to retire in the coming years, Gates said, noting it remains unclear how many of these surface ships the department can afford to replace.
"All elements of the [nuclear] triad need to be modernized. You may have to make some choices there," he added. "I want to frame this so it's not a math exercise, but so people understand the strategic and national security consequences of the decisions that they're making. And it's up to us to do that, I think, in stark terms."
Inside Defense, 21 April 2011
The upcoming Pentagon assessment aimed at cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in defense spending will likely start with the same threat scenarios that informed the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, but will use a different process to reconsider the need for longstanding missions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today.
The department's classified depictions of threats to international security -- called defense-planning scenarios -- each include a corresponding mission for U.S. military forces and a strategic-level concept of operation for carrying out that mission. The Pentagon will likely use the scenarios as a starting point for examining options for eliminating missions, Gates told reporters.
"So it will start, probably, with the QDR in terms of the scenarios and then try to translate that into what are the programmatic implications as you begin to reduce the mission sets," he said.
The department could revisit its commitment to being able to fight two major conflicts at the same time, Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright said at the same Pentagon briefing.
"There's another element to this on the strategy side of it and that is, what is it you want to be able to do and how much of it do you want to be able to do, which gets to quantities and capabilities," Cartwright said. "And so starting with this strategy and understanding that historically the department has been a two-major-theater-war construct, etc. -- where do we want to be on that and then what are the implications of any changes in that, I think, are important questions you ask up front."
Whereas the QDR is a review of DOD strategy and priorities mandated by Congress, the new assessment, announced last week by President Obama, is aimed squarely at gleaning savings to reduce the federal deficit.
Giving the entire department "a haircut" by declaring "everybody is going to cut X percent" would be the "worst" approach, Gates said. "That's the way we got the hollow military in the 1970s and in the 1990s. And so I want to frame this so that options and consequences and risks are taken into account . . . as budget decisions are made, first by the president and then by the Congress." The new assessment will not be a compressed QDR, he noted.
"It won't be a mini-QDR," Gates said, "because I think what we have to do in structuring these options -- I mean, one approach that we talked about, and I haven't settled on which approach we're going to take, but one approach would be to take the scenarios in the QDR and translate those into forces: exactly what forces would be required to perform that range of missions."
That way, DOD could consider the implications of eliminating particular missions, he noted. "And then if you begin cutting off missions, if you begin saying OK, what if you didn't do this, what if you weren't able, what if you decided you didn't need to be able to fight two regional conflicts at the same time, then what are the implications of that for the force?" Gates said.
The White House has said it wants to slash security spending by $400 billion by fiscal year 2023, but Gates said it remains unclear exactly how much of those cuts DOD would shoulder.
"We don't know at this point," Gates said. "My cabinet colleagues are looking at me very suspiciously," he joked. "But no . . . that hasn't been worked out yet." DOD's planning for its review remains in the early stages, he noted.
"We have just gotten started on this," Gates said. "I've had one meeting to begin thinking about how we structure this." Gleaning substantial savings will be challenging for the department, the defense secretary stressed.
"There are those that argue if you funded the department at roughly inflation for the next 12 years that you would find this money," he said. "That may well be true. But some of our big-ticket items are items that don't fall within that category: healthcare, fuel costs and there are others like that. We have some investments that we have to make."
The necessary investments include the Air Force's new tanker program, as well as the coming need to replacing aging Navy warships that were built during the Reagan administration and are slated to retire in the coming years, Gates said, noting it remains unclear how many of these surface ships the department can afford to replace.
"All elements of the [nuclear] triad need to be modernized. You may have to make some choices there," he added. "I want to frame this so it's not a math exercise, but so people understand the strategic and national security consequences of the decisions that they're making. And it's up to us to do that, I think, in stark terms."
14 April 2011
Defence chief warns against planned cuts
Daniel Dombey and James Politi in Washington
Financial Times, 14 April 2011
The Pentagon has warned Barack Obama his planned defence cuts could force the US military to rein in its role across the world, underlining the high-stakes fight over the US president's fiscal plans.
As Republicans attacked Mr Obama for his new goal of cutting $400bn in defence spending over the next 12 years, the office of Robert Gates, defence secretary, made clear it was uneasy about the risks involved.
"The secretary has been clear that further significant defence cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability," said Mr Gates's spokesman, signalling the concern of a senior member of Mr Obama's administration.
Until now, the president has often deferred to Mr Gates, who is due to retire this year, avoiding any sharp break with the Bush administration on national security strategy, traditionally an electoral weak spot for the Democrats.
But it was not until Tuesday, a day before Mr Obama's announcement, that Mr Gates learned in full about the planned cuts. The defence secretary has long campaigned against cutting overall defence spending, despite pushing through extensive plans to save billions of dollars and axing specific high-profile programmes.
Mr Obama's new plans, unveiled on Wednesday, are the first time the president has proposed such overall cuts. Previously during his administration, the US has reduced the expected rate of growth in the Pentagon budget. This time, however, it plans to increase security spending by less than the rate of inflation, even before taking into account savings from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr Gates's spokesman said the defence secretary agreed with Mr Obama that a comprehensive review had to take place before any specific cuts were made. "The secretary believes that this process must be about managing risk associated with future threats and national security challenges and identifying missions that the country is willing to have the military forgo," he said. "It is important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices and not be a budget math exercise."
Under the last round of savings, which Mr Gates agreed to in January, the Pentagon's base budget of more than $550bn would be held constant in real terms in 2015 and 2016 after increases in previous years.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has argued that spending will have to go back up in subsequent years or US forces will have to be cut beyond planned reductions in the size of the army and the marines.
A US official emphasised that the additional cuts now called for by Mr Obama would only take place after consultation with the defence secretary and the joint chiefs of staff, noting that some savings could come from outside the Pentagon.
By contrast, the Republican budget plan announced last week simply endorsed some of the earlier savings identified by the Pentagon for deficit reduction.
"I have grave concerns about the White House announcing a $400bn cut to national security spending while our troops are fighting in three different theatres," said Howard McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, highlighting how difficult it could be to come to an ag-reement by the end of June deadline set by Mr Obama.
Citation: Daniel Dombey and James Politi, "Defence chief warns against planned cuts," Financial Times,14 April 2011. Original URL: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c252072c-6624-11e0-9d40-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JTOauOu1
DOD: Finding More Savings In Defense Budget Means Nixing Missions
Inside Defense - Christopher J. Castelli
President Obama's call today for a new review to find more savings in the defense budget will require careful attention to "managing risk" and determining which missions "the country is willing to have the military forgo," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said.
Morrell, the chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments following Obama's speech on fiscal policy at George Washington University.
Obama stressed the need to "find additional savings" in the defense budget.
"Now, as commander-in-chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world," Obama said. "But as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. [Michael] Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt. So just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. And we can do that while still keeping ourselves safe."
Over the last two years, Gates has "courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending," Obama said, adding, "I believe we can do that again." DOD must not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but also must conduct "a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities and our role in a changing world," he said.
"I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete," Obama added.
The president's framework "sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023," the White House said in a statement.
Gates believes the Defense Department "cannot be exempt from efforts to bring federal deficit spending under control," Morrell said. "However, it is important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices and not be a budget math exercise. The president's direction gets the sequence right by conducting a comprehensive review first and only then making decisions on specific funding options."
The president acknowledged that DOD has been at the forefront in paring back unneeded, duplicative and obsolete programs and administrative overhead, Morrell noted.
"He wants us to continue this effort with the goal of significant additional savings over the coming decade. By the same token, the secretary has been clear that further significant defense cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability," he added. "The comprehensive review of missions, capabilities and America's role in the world will identify alternatives for the president's consideration. The secretary believes that this process must be about managing risk associated with future threats and national security challenges and identifying missions that the country is willing to have the military forgo."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) took a dim view of the president's speech.
"When we consider the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 next month in the committee, my subcommittee chairmen and I will propose billions of dollars in savings that we will then reinvest in higher national security priorities," he said in a statement.
"I have grave concerns about the White House announcing a $400 billion cut to national security spending while our troops are fighting in three different theaters," McKeon said. "Additionally, assigning a specific number to national security cuts prior to the completion of a comprehensive review of our military's roles and missions seems to be putting the cart before the horse. As Secretary of Defense Gates reminded us last year, announcing specific cuts prior to actually assessing the required missions and necessary force structure is `math not strategy.'"
Eagerly anticipated DOD fiscal guidance that will pave the way for the FY-13 budget process remains in the works as Congress moves closer to belatedly passing an FY-11 defense appropriations bill, a senior defense official told Inside the Pentagon Tuesday in a brief interview.
"We have not issued fiscal guidance yet," the official said. Asked whether the department would wait until the FY-11 budget is settled, the official was noncommittal. "I actually don't know what we're going to wait for. It's a little bit chaotic right now. But we haven't issued fiscal guidance yet," the official said.
A Pentagon source said it is unclear when DOD will issue its FY-13 fiscal guidance, which typically comes out in April, but noted the armed services need it to prepare their investment plans.
After Congress narrowly avoided a shutdown of the federal government last week, lawmakers are moving closer to passing an FY-11 defense appropriations bill. The department is "still going through the details" of House appropriators' 459-page continuing resolution for FY-11, DOD spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said late Tuesday.
The legislation would appropriate about $513 billion for defense, approximately $17.4 billion for military construction and roughly $157.8 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account, he said.
Retired Lt. Gen. Emerson "Emo" Gardner, who concluded his military career last year as principal deputy director of the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE) office, told ITP last month the military has faced the tough task of preparing FY-13 plans in the absence of an FY-11 defense appropriations bill and amid talk on Capitol Hill of deep cuts in FY-12 to reduce the federal deficit.
"My impression is that the services are in big trouble in figuring out the FY-13 budget. How can they not be?" Gardner said at the time. "There are two numbers the services need now and that should be issued to them by CAPE sometime soon in a document known as Fiscal Guidance, a document that normally comes out in early April and that almost never leaks out: what number should we assume we're getting in FY-11/12 and what number should we assume for FY-13 and beyond."
President Obama's call today for a new review to find more savings in the defense budget will require careful attention to "managing risk" and determining which missions "the country is willing to have the military forgo," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said.
Morrell, the chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments following Obama's speech on fiscal policy at George Washington University.
Obama stressed the need to "find additional savings" in the defense budget.
"Now, as commander-in-chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world," Obama said. "But as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. [Michael] Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt. So just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. And we can do that while still keeping ourselves safe."
Over the last two years, Gates has "courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending," Obama said, adding, "I believe we can do that again." DOD must not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but also must conduct "a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities and our role in a changing world," he said.
"I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete," Obama added.
The president's framework "sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023," the White House said in a statement.
Gates believes the Defense Department "cannot be exempt from efforts to bring federal deficit spending under control," Morrell said. "However, it is important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices and not be a budget math exercise. The president's direction gets the sequence right by conducting a comprehensive review first and only then making decisions on specific funding options."
The president acknowledged that DOD has been at the forefront in paring back unneeded, duplicative and obsolete programs and administrative overhead, Morrell noted.
"He wants us to continue this effort with the goal of significant additional savings over the coming decade. By the same token, the secretary has been clear that further significant defense cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability," he added. "The comprehensive review of missions, capabilities and America's role in the world will identify alternatives for the president's consideration. The secretary believes that this process must be about managing risk associated with future threats and national security challenges and identifying missions that the country is willing to have the military forgo."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) took a dim view of the president's speech.
"When we consider the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 next month in the committee, my subcommittee chairmen and I will propose billions of dollars in savings that we will then reinvest in higher national security priorities," he said in a statement.
"I have grave concerns about the White House announcing a $400 billion cut to national security spending while our troops are fighting in three different theaters," McKeon said. "Additionally, assigning a specific number to national security cuts prior to the completion of a comprehensive review of our military's roles and missions seems to be putting the cart before the horse. As Secretary of Defense Gates reminded us last year, announcing specific cuts prior to actually assessing the required missions and necessary force structure is `math not strategy.'"
Eagerly anticipated DOD fiscal guidance that will pave the way for the FY-13 budget process remains in the works as Congress moves closer to belatedly passing an FY-11 defense appropriations bill, a senior defense official told Inside the Pentagon Tuesday in a brief interview.
"We have not issued fiscal guidance yet," the official said. Asked whether the department would wait until the FY-11 budget is settled, the official was noncommittal. "I actually don't know what we're going to wait for. It's a little bit chaotic right now. But we haven't issued fiscal guidance yet," the official said.
A Pentagon source said it is unclear when DOD will issue its FY-13 fiscal guidance, which typically comes out in April, but noted the armed services need it to prepare their investment plans.
After Congress narrowly avoided a shutdown of the federal government last week, lawmakers are moving closer to passing an FY-11 defense appropriations bill. The department is "still going through the details" of House appropriators' 459-page continuing resolution for FY-11, DOD spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said late Tuesday.
The legislation would appropriate about $513 billion for defense, approximately $17.4 billion for military construction and roughly $157.8 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account, he said.
Retired Lt. Gen. Emerson "Emo" Gardner, who concluded his military career last year as principal deputy director of the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE) office, told ITP last month the military has faced the tough task of preparing FY-13 plans in the absence of an FY-11 defense appropriations bill and amid talk on Capitol Hill of deep cuts in FY-12 to reduce the federal deficit.
"My impression is that the services are in big trouble in figuring out the FY-13 budget. How can they not be?" Gardner said at the time. "There are two numbers the services need now and that should be issued to them by CAPE sometime soon in a document known as Fiscal Guidance, a document that normally comes out in early April and that almost never leaks out: what number should we assume we're getting in FY-11/12 and what number should we assume for FY-13 and beyond."