With the most recent budget debate starting to heat up, I have been asked on several occasions “what justifies the increase in defense spending?” Without going into specifics on the budget the White House sent over (no, Social Security and Medicare weren’t cut, despite big 5 reporting, but I’ll address that later), I thought it to be a good time to visit exactly *why* we are spending what seems to be an exorbitant amount on defense, for us all to ponder…
As I often do, let’s look at history first. Starting with notable defense spending over the last 43 years:
Carter: $120B-$161B (peaked at $455B in today’s dollars – mostly due to start of military re-fitting; remember the failed hostage rescue attempt that never even made it to Tehran??)
Reagan: $214B – $391B (peaked at $848B in today’s dollars – big focus on modernization and ships)
Bush W – 432B-763B (peaked at $910B in today’s dollars; mostly due to wartime spending)
Obama – 784B-612B (peaked early at $932B in today’s dollars; mostly due to wartime spending)
Trump – 605B-$652B (authorized to $693B), $718B proposed for FY 20 – mostly for replacements of aging platforms (ships, planes, etc. – even the F-15 and F-16 platforms started service in the 70s). *Side note: The military does not believe they will use more than 85%-90% of the budget.
Obama promised to draw-down troop levels and engagements, however by later 2016 the US had furthered engagements under Obama (with no increase in troop levels, just longer deployments), to counteract deteriorating security concerns globally that were often the result of US withdrawal earlier in his term. In fact, the US, under Obama, entered into deeper engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, and Eastern/Central Europe, to deal with expanding aggression, created by a US vacuum, from Russia, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and even “Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army”. A quote from his address in March 2008, he declared of Iraq, “When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war.” Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as “ending the war in Iraq responsibly” and “finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”
Here’s a fun fact: Total war-related spending under Bush: $811B. Under Obama: $866B. I’m guessing that didn’t appear in any story on the big 5 networks…
And yet through all of that spending, equipment replacements under Obama were sidelined almost across the board. Aging aircraft, tanks, ships, etc., were held together far longer than expected safe service life because no money was budgeted and appropriated. That said, however, to be fair, Obama did support a new bomber plan, one new nuclear sub (in 8 years), and some nuclear arsenal modernizations. However, troop levels are also something to look closely at: Under Bush (George HW), troop levels were just under 2.1M. Under Clinton, levels were plummeted down to 1.37M. Under Bush (George W), levels rose to 1.5M. Under Obama, levels again were dropped to 1.34M. Under the current Trump administration, levels are climbing through 1.42M.
Another fun fact: Jimmy Carter, whom Obama closely paralleled in his military oversite approach, severely decreased military spending, applying what were referred to as “neat little theories” about the world in the late 70s and Soviet aggression. By late in his term he started to reverse course as he acknowledged his theories were quite incorrect, and as our state of readiness was critically impacted. In fact, he stunned congress in his last year in office with a request for $161B ($455B in today’s dollars) in defense spending to try to close the gap he created in his first years in office. For reference, in 1977, Carter submitted a $120B defense budget; in 3 years he had to swing over 33% upward in defense spending to start correct his earlier mistake.
Putting that into real state of readiness and training terms: When I, as a cadet, first climbed into the cockpit of a T-37 Tweet in the early days of Reagan, spare parts postponed under Carter’s budget hadn’t yet caught up to us; a significant number of inflight systems were either missing or not operational in several aircraft. By year three of Reagan, however, this had been corrected. But Reagan had to overspend to bring that readiness back to levels commensurate with the global commitments and requirements being made of our military. The Dem party, however, took that as a campaign bat to swing at him: Overspending on defense. He didn’t cause the problem, but he was left to fix it. Bush ran into the same thing after Clinton. And Trump has run into the same thing after Obama – but not to the extremes of past presidents; but he’s still taking hits…
What else is Trump now needing to follow in the footsteps of Reagan to correct?
Let’s start with aircraft carriers – one of our largest projections of power and deterrence in the world. Any time in the last 80 years, when something bad happens somewhere requiring a US response, a carrier battle group is often first on the scene. Today we have the Nimitz-class carriers – 10 in all, plus the USS Enterprise (now inactive). These beasts need nuclear fuel once every 20 years, and have an expected service life of not more than 50 years. The Enterprise went in the water in 1961. The Nimitz first went in the water in 1975. The Gerald Ford (first boat of the Ford-class) was conceived in 2005 under Bush. 15 years later the Ford is only now at sea in trials, and expected active hopefully later this year, 60 years after the boat it replaces (the Enterprise).
How about our aircraft? Let’s look at the oldest and greatest example, the B-52 Stratofortress. This mammoth aircraft was built between 1952-1962; 744 were built, 76 still remain in service, with most expected to remain in service through the 2040s, partially due to budget issues with replacing them with B-1 and B-2 models. *Side note – Carter slashed the B-1 project during his term; Reagan re-accelerated it, as 5 supersonic new-gen bombers in the cold war was just …wrong. But back to the BUFF (nickname for the ‘52’s – stands to this day for Big Ugly Fat Fucker, or ‘Fella”, if you are PC): This aircraft survives on 3 bases in the US today, and keeps getting re-fit, updated, inspected, and repaired, to stay in the air. Its service life is measured in airframe hours; suffice it to say that we should have started to retire the BUFF in the 90s; here we are, 25+ years later. A report from the pentagon summarized it well (many years ago): “Imagine flying a Sopwith Camel in Vietnam…” I give you the enduring B-52 today.
What about submarines? One of our best unseen deterrents from nuclear first strike. Of the several nuclear sub classes we have in the fleet (ballistic missile, attack, and cruise missile), Ohio-class nuclear subs (14 in total), built between 1981 and 1997, were supposed to have 20-30 year service lives (max), and are only now being scheduled for replacement with Columbia-class subs (12 in all) that will enter service starting in 2029, and begin patrols in 2031 (USS Columbia), and have 42 year estimated service lives. This will result in a near 45-year service life requirement on the current, aged fleet.
What does this all mean? First, it means we need to find a way to steady our military spend levels. We get a democrat in office, we target the military for cutting (not always successfully). We get a republican, we overspend to correct deficiencies. There must be a mean level over 40 years, allowing for appropriate increases, that we can get to… But we need to start from the appropriate readiness position. The last 2 years of spending are aimed to again do that, rhetoric aside.
What else does it mean? It means the mission of the military, and the way it is executed, will constantly change, and we need to anticipate and plan (years in advance) for this – because it takes years to develop systems and strategies that will be needed. It is true that more automation and sophistication replaces the need for as many boots on the ground. As Obama famously said when debating Romney, “we need less horses and bayonets than we used to” – which is increasingly true. But that also means that weapons systems are heavily (REALLY heavily) dependent on satellite and other electronic warfare tech. Our adversaries are well on the way to developing weapons to eliminate those systems on the ground, in the air (e.g., drones), and in orbit (e.g., EM tech, “attack” satellites, hypersonic missile tech for both orbital attacks and first-strike land attacks that the Russians just unveiled last quarter). Enter the new “Space Force” – a good idea, originally sidelined when Obama slashed NASA, grounded the shuttle, scuttled plans for a shuttle modernization/replacement, and turned to the same Russians to give us a ride to the ISS for many years (even today). I can go into a long story on how totally dependent even our civilian lives are on satellites, but that’ll take way too long…
So net, net: My recommendation on the budget gripes over military spending is this: Get over it. Like it or not, we are the world’s stability. If the US isn’t there as a deterrent, there is no plan B. There hasn’t been since the end of WWII. And make no mistake about it: At least 2 major countries, and at least 10 other minor ones would like nothing better than to have a weakened America so they could own the shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, or the South China Sea, or the Panama Canal, or threaten Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, or North Africa, or (fill in the blank). China, for instance, already has a larger naval fleet that the US (albeit not as powerful.. yet)… who saw that one coming? Build our economy, jobs, and GDP, which increases treasury revenues, control spending across the board, eliminate earmark spending to get votes, and stop fighting amongst ourselves. Think about it.
