Debate Club

Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary? >

Military Already Underfunded, Thanks to Obama

Defense budget is not large enough to cover president's foreign policy agenda

November 21, 2011

About Mackenzie Eaglen:

Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate, and at the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff.

The question is misleading. Defense budget cuts are being implemented now. They've been going on for the past two years, and many more are planed in the near future. It's not a question of "if they're necessary" but how damaging they will be for a force that is only being used more, not less, everyday worldwide, and a military facing a readiness crisis after 10 years of constant combat.

Using Washington math, some say there have been no defense cuts. But President Obama's started slashing military plans and priorities since taking office. His first defense budget canceled or delayed some 50 major equipment programs, including ships, missile defense, cargo and fighter aircraft, and ground vehicles valued at more than $300 billion. Then, behind the scenes, the White House took another $78 billion out of the military's budget last winter.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

President Obama was so pleased with these defense cuts, he vowed to repeat them by cutting another $400 billion from the military—even before there was a debt ceiling deal that further cuts defense spending.

That's not how the nation should build (or not build) a defense budget. The defense budget and military force size and structure are informed by the president's foreign policy, our nation's enduring vital national interests, the threats we face, and how to defend against them or deter others within certain margins of risk.

[See photos of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.]

These cuts are coming at a time when U.S. foreign policy objectives and the hard power to support them are increasingly out of whack. President Obama is cashing in the defense budget even though, over the past three years, he surged forces in Afghanistan (twice), launched a new air war over Libya, dramatically increased counterterrorism operations with Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and sent troops to Africa to fight the Lord's Resistance Army. Nor is there any reason to think he would hesitate to send troops to provide relief in the next natural disaster, just as he has used them to aid victims in Japan and Haiti. Obama has even proposed keeping 1,200 National Guard troops at the United States' southwestern border to augment customs officers.

Washington can continue to underfund the military, but it will not mean a less ambitious foreign policy. It will mean hollow security and treaty commitments, greatly increased risk of conflict, and substantially greater casualties for the men and women who serve in the military.

Tags:
Department of Defense,
deficit and national debt
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — By limiting expenditures, U.S. can actually solidify its defense

RON PAUL, U.S. Representative and Republican Candidate for President

#2

Yes — Reducing the military budget means less war, not more

PATRICK TAKAHASHI, Director Emeritus at the University of Hawaii

#3

Yes — Reductions should be a gradual process led by the military braintrust

TRAVIS SHARP, Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security

#4
#5

Yes — Cuts may be necessary, but don't shift the entire burden to the military

KORI SCHAKE, Bradley Professor of International Security Studies at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

#6
#7

No — The solution to the debt crisis lies in entitlements and taxes, not the military budget

DOUG BERENSON, Director of the Defense & Aerospace Group at Avascent Group

#8

No — The consequences of cutting the military budget are still not understood

J. RANDY FORBES, U.S. Representative and Chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Advertisement