• Comment (3)

Pentagon to Unveil Military Spending Cuts

The Obama administration is rewriting its defense strategy to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts

January 4, 2012 RSS Feed Print

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is rewriting its defense strategy to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts while scaling back the longstanding Pentagon goal of being ready to fight two wars simultaneously.

Underscoring the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings, President Barack Obama planned to make a rare appearance at the Pentagon on Thursday to outline the new strategy. The administration says tighter budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition after a decade at war.

In a presidential election year the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

The strategy, to be outlined at a news conference also attended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, is not expected to mark a big change in defense priorities. It may set the stage, however, for expected cutbacks in Europe and big weapons programs.

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

It also will move the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars — like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea — at the same time. This takes into account a bigger focus on immediate threats like cyber warfare and terrorism.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Obama was closely involved in the defense strategy review, meeting six times since September with top defense officials, including Panetta and Dempsey. Carney said Tuesday the review will set priorities to ensure that defense spending reductions are "surgical."

The notion of sizing and shaping the U.S. military to be able to fight two major regional wars had its origins in efforts by the Pentagon to design a post-Cold War military after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[See a slide show of 15 post-Cold War uprisings.]

A decade later senior U.S. officials were questioning the rationale for maintaining a two-war strategy. In June 2001, for example, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress the strategy was "not working." But a short time later the U.S. was in fact fighting two wars — in Afghanistan and Iraq — although neither fit strictly the definition of wars against nation-state aggressors.

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. Another $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.

Tags:
Donald Rumsfeld,
Leon Panetta,
Department of Defense,
Asia,
9/11,
al Qaeda,
Iran,
China,
Associated Press,
Congress,
War in Afghanistan (2001-),
Pentagon,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Andy, your comment is 101% right! I would like CNN to publish it.

Not sure while the big guys looking for changes in the retirement plan for military. The roughly 25% who receive a full retirement compared to the rest leaving without a benefit and collecting a 401K, wouldn't make the 401K military retirement plan beneficial. I would like to see the figures between the tratitional military retirement and the 401K retirement plan in numbers saved. Sounds to me like the government gives you money to gamble it away on wall street. It surely makes wall street happy. After giving so many years of freedom and time away from your family, you should not live in an uncertainty while your retired and gamble with a 401K plan. Instead having guys retiring pass 24 years and paying them the extra % at retirement. Have everyone that is due to Rank/ Paygrade currently able to stay past 24 years retire at that point. It might be a small saving, but no need to crunch numbers. Its an obvious saving. Not sure that those guys who have 2-4 years left untill military retirement have that much steam left. Yes we can argue this point. But it decreases the number of personnel. This is only one scenerio out of thousands. If the government hires an outside consultant firm and goes through the current regulations of each agency and their financial offices. I believe we wouldn't be in this situation. Its difficult to find an honest politician. They might start honest and then get manipulated by their party, and the good old club. They have to pay back for all the favors they received. All this pre-election talk just goes up in smoke. People want stabillity, go to work, earn money, and take care of their family. Let those Hardvard/ Yale college students grow up first and live a regular life, before having them try to change the world with their nonsense politics. k

kim of NY 2:43PM February 01, 2012

If you want to know why we have equipment that doesn't do the job and costs too much, Google and read John McCain 12/15/11 Speech to the Senate. Cost plus contracts put into production before design is near complete, Generals negotiating contracts with companies they are looking for jobs with, our Senators and Representatives directing non-bid work to companies they get campaign gifts from - the only reason these are not bribes is that the recipients write the definition of "bribe" into the law to exclude the "gifts" they receive.

Andy of CA 8:24PM January 17, 2012

It's the usual theme about Obama.

Making decisions off the cuff, and re-thinking it later.

I guess it's like sayIng "PRESENT", WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO A VOTE.

This time he is doing the same but with a differnt TWIST TO IT.

JOHN WITHERS of NY 1:19AM January 05, 2012

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos