Here’s a novel idea: challenge top defense budget experts (outside the government) to design a 10-year spending portfolio for the Department of Defense. The catch? Do it within the nation’s would-be sequestration constraints.
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) did just that, and experts rolled out their plans this week on Capitol Hill. CSBA called it “The Strategic Choice Exercise”: Determine what spending tradeoffs within the department maximize efficiency and security under new draconian limits.
Since any cut to defense arguably jeopardizes security, experts were asked to deftly pinpoint the “acceptable level of risk” the U.S. could permit. Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute portended a grim reality for DoD under sequestration: “All I can offer you is roads to failure. The only question is, how fast and how straight.”
However distressing, eking more from less is our reality, and resource scarcity is known to inspire creative solutions. While each presenter proffered a distinct vision of DoD spending (as well as the larger role of U.S. foreign and defense policy), there were a few consensus recommendations for reprioritizing existing expenditures.
Cut personnel.
Overhead expenses were the paramount cutback for all presenters; they reaped the most savings from slicing deep into personnel (often nearing an 18 percent reduction). This includes active members, guard, reserve and civilians. Civilians were the first to go. Ground forces received extensive cuts.
Modernize equipment.
It was recommended forces retire and/or cut various older vehicles sooner, to be replaced with less burdensome alternatives. For example, cut non-stealthy aircraft generally, and on the sea, cut surface combatants, including cruisers, destroyers and carriers. Instead, invest in streamlined upgrades such as stealthy and unmanned aircrafts, ground vehicles and undersea vessels.
Sacrifice readiness.
This was a later resort for rebalancing, but it was aggressively pursued when necessary. Jim Thomas of CSBA described cuts to readiness as “unavoidable,” and urged Congress to consider this distressing reality of sequester.
Plunge saved funds into space and cyber ventures.
Retaining the U.S. technological edge was described as an “integral” measure despite cuts. Experts universally increased funds to this area, endorsing enlarged offensive cyber capabilities, Railgun tech, Undersea Censors/UUVs, and additional SATCOM and GPS satellites.
A slideshow detailing each expert’s budget design can be found on the CSBA website.
Presenters
- Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute
- Robert Work, Center for a New American Security
- Jim Thomas, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Clark Murdock, Center for Strategic and International Studies
(Note: The exercise’s parameters were more exacting than described above. Read the project guidelines and its underlying assumptions in the “Introduction and Exercise Overview” slideshow here.)
