Published: November 21, 2008 09:26 am         

Ideas to bring defense spending back to reality

Many people scoffed at President-elect Barack Obama’s suggestions during his campaign that the United States can trim its defense budget by 25 percent during a war, but I believe we can. We can save billions by simply reducing duplication of effort and waste. Here are my recommendations:

* Take a slow approach, gradually reducing defense spending by about 8 percent per year during years two, three and four of the first term. Don’t mess with 2009 and please don’t ask the Department of Defense to cut 25 percent from its 2010 budget. Such a slash would have a ripple effect throughout the defense industry, resulting in thousands of lost jobs.

It also would harm force readiness. Moreover, proceed slowly with withdrawing forces from Iraq. Don’t create a situation that we’ll have to pay for in more American blood down the road.

* Every dollar spent on diplomacy is worth 10 defense dollars. For this reason, 10 percent of the total trim-med from each year’s defense budget should go to the State Department for rebuilding our diplomatic corps.

The department was already in trouble when President Bush fired Colin Powell and it’s been slipping ever since.

Political appointees serve in many key positions, which would best be filled by career diplomats.

In February 2007, the International Herald Tribune reported that changes in the Foreign Service landscape during the preceding five years had resulted in many State Department employees refusing to serve in hostile fire zones. The department is broken. Obama needs to fix it.

* Cut overseas forces significantly. According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0712.pdf), as of Dec. 31, 2007, the United States had 1,368,226 active duty military personnel. Of these, nearly 270,000 were serving in foreign countries, mostly Iraq and Afghanistan.

But many are in places where our country fought wars more than half a century ago.

The report states that 57,000 American troops were in Germany, 33,000 in Japan and 26,000 in South Korea.

About 12,000 of the forces in Germany were deployed into Iraq and Afghanistan, while their families remained in Germany at great expense to taxpayers. We hear much discussion about Iraq needing to be responsible for its own security. Well what about Germany, Japan and South Korea?

There were 29,000 additional U.S. service personnel serving in other NATO and non-NATO European countries, including about 10,000 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. America’s security arrangements with Germany, Japan, South Korea and NATO need to be overhauled.

Japan and South Korea are strong, prosperous nations capable of defending themselves. Also, it’s time Germany and all European members of NATO pay more for their defense. Current contributions to NATO are based on a country’s gross domestic product, which might have made sense when Europe was recovering from World War II, but the United States paying the biggest share for European defense doesn’t work today.

* The OSD report indicated that 388 U.S. military personnel were stationed in Honduras, more than twice the number of personnel stationed across all the countries of the former Soviet Union.

The Department of Defense should be engaging Russia and other former Soviet states by having hundreds of our military officers learning their languages, attending their military service colleges and working to break down cultural barriers and fears.

Improving relations with these countries will allow us more options when dealing with potential adversaries in East Asia and the Middle East.

The United States must engage Russia and seek military, diplomatic and economic cooperation. Conflict between our countries will benefit neither. As a member nation of an expanding NATO, the United States needs to seriously rethink whether it’s worth going to war with Russia if conflict erupts between Russia and one of the former Soviet states – Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania – which now are NATO members. The mutual defense portion of the NATO charter needs to be reviewed.

And if Europe needs a missile shield, let the Europeans build it and let them deal with their Russian neighbors.

* The United States has five military services, all with separate acquisition authority.

Among them, there are three large military exchange systems (Army and Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps), which are similar to department store chains managed by the military. Four of the services have separate missions in outer space (none in the Coast Guard yet). The Navy and Coast Guard are two separate navies and the Army has about 50 ships of its own. We have two air forces – Navy and the Air Force.

Between the Army and the Marine Corps we have two infantry forces, two armor forces, two field artillery forces and much more duplication.

Many common functions could be shared by the military, such as recruiting, basic training and other schools, training programs, logistics functions and administrative services.

Reducing duplication and waste are basic principles of management. Therefore, Obama must seriously question whether our nation can afford five separate military services.

I wouldn’t want to be sitting at the table with the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he drops this bomb, but I’d love to be a fly on the wall.



Zachary Hubbard is a freelance writer residing in Upper Yoder Township. He is a member of The Tribune-Democrat Reader Advisory Committee.

     

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.