Special Report
Obama’s Defense Budget
It presages American global retreat and decline.
This week’s release of the Obama administration budget reveals, not surprisingly, that defense and national security are being shortchanged (again) so that the White House can focus on its real priority — which is not to assert American leadership abroad, but rather to manage American decline and to address domestic concerns.
Of course, you wouldn’t know this from reading or listening to the lapdog legacy media, which uncritically parrots Obama administration talking points. Reuters, for instance, reports that “Obama seeks record $708 billion in defense budget.”
MSNBC agrees: “Obama wants $33 billion more for wars,” it intones — and this “comes on top of [a] record $708-billion request for next year.” Is “Obama a hawk?” asks Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman.
The answer is no, not at all. In fact, as James Jay Carafano points out, Obama “is cutting the defense budget, both in real dollar terms and as a percent of the economy… The average Pentagon budget for the period covering fiscal years 2011 through 2028 will be $50 billion less in real dollars than its current estimate for this fiscal year,” Carafano notes.
Historical perspective and contextual understanding also are required. Obama, remember, inherited two wars, an omnipresent terror threat, and the greatest military in the history of the world. So it is not surprising that as president, and as commander-in-chief, he hasn’t simply and recklessly dismantled and disarmed the U.S. military.
Yet, that seems to be the ridiculous and ahistorical standard against which the media judge the president. And, of course, given this standard (or grading curve), the president looks like a stellar performer and a strong commander-in-chief.
Give Obama credit for not being reckless; he is not. If he were reckless, then he would have foolishly and precipitously withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama, however, has not done that; in fact, quite the opposite: He has sent tens upon thousands of more troops to Afghanistan and is adhering, essentially, to the Bush administration’s deliberative, conditions-based plan for troop withdrawals from Iraq.
The president recognizes that a sudden and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would be an unmitigated national security disaster for the United States.
But while Obama is not reckless, neither is an internationalist who believes in the importance of American global leadership. Obama’s defense budget, moreover, reflects his unwillingness to exercise U.S. military power.
How else to explain a defense budget that, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), ranks among the smallest we have seen since before World War II?
How else to explain the refusal to significantly expand the size of our ground forces for this era of persistent military engagement, which requires “boots on the ground”?
How else to explain the failure to seriously modernize a legacy military — and especially our ground forces — for 21st century conflicts?
How else to explain killing key weapon systems — like the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s C-17 jet transport aircraft — which are absolutely essential to today’s conflicts (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti), as well as likely future contingencies?
No, Obama is doing what he must to avoid being reckless; however, he is not doing what he must to maintain American military preeminence and American global leadership — and he candidly admits this.
“The nation that I’m most interested in building is our own,” he told the West Point cadets during his 1 December 2009 speech. Consequently,
About the Author
John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by John R. Guardiano
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/04/obamas-defense-budget
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Obama’s Drone War
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 7:10AM
Must Know Headlines 2.4.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alan Brooks| 2.4.10 @ 8:04AM
American retreat?
isn't that what those such as Toddard and Red want?
danny| 2.4.10 @ 8:38AM
right on, john. i,m sitting here reading your post and almost screaming at the screen. first and foremost i want patriots in there that are looking after my safety, my best interests. i hardly ever hear complaints about boehner and his lifeless ilk. give me somebody with a stiff spine who has our safety as a nation as their main concern. i don't care if they are a (d) or an (r).
Chalkdust| 2.4.10 @ 9:23AM
What?.... Apart from the excellent statics, there's an underlying tone of incredulity In your article Mr. Guardiano. I personally expected little else from a person unfamiliar with the truth and who as a public person, refuses to part his personal Vail of secret records which should be to most men, testaments of educational/political achievements.
John - TMF| 2.4.10 @ 9:31AM
Ok... I hate doing this, but it is time to take an author, who I generally agree with, to task (a several points, actually):
1. The One did not inherit TWO wars. He assumed, at his own desire, the command of ONE war; The Global War On Terror.
The continued "Conservative" acceptance of the Leftist definition that Afghanistan and Iraq were two separate wars is rhetorically suicidal. Afghanistan was the opening "conventional" campaign of the Global War on Terror. Iraq was the second conventional campaign.
Of course The Bamster has decided that the "war" is just a series of "Man Caused Disasters" and has worked in public to litigate his way to some sort of Pacifist dream-state of eternal peace through good feelings and government money.
Until Conservatives quit using Liberal language and definition sets, we will never win the argument. It is sort of the "Kobayashi Maru Test" of the 21st Century. Until we change the parameters of the program, we will never have a chance at winning.
2. Boehner is not an idiot, or a some sort of phony because he stated a harmless truth. There is lots of fraud and waste in the Defense Department. Bureaucratic rice bowls are hard to remove. Bad programs that never end are difficult to stop. Good programs get killed for short sighted political point scoring. Duplication of effort is always a problem, even when services are ordered to quit it, they continue because the system is rigged to allow them to do it.
So how is poking your ally in the eye and kicking him in the shin for the sake of slaking a desire for petulant cynicism going to help the cause of defending this nation? Is Boehner's banal issue defusing remark some sort of treachery? No, not on its face, and not in the depth of examination either.
3. The fact remains that The Obamessiah is hell bent to dismember the US Military. He wants it rendered impotent, crippled by internal social politics, and tool-less.
Gates seems to have sold his manhood to pay for a nice gig as a switch hitting political hack.
For example, we are about to kill the F-35 (Manager of which we have just fired). It was a poorly considered design requirement from the beginning (I said so at the time). It was a gold plated over burdened supposed replacement for the F-16 in the AirForce.
It was something that the UK was interested in as a replacement for the Harrier and supposedly the Jaguar. The Marines want a replacement for their Harriers, and on and on... now it has to drop bombs (pretty tiny airframe for that mission - the F-16 was only good at it because there were lots and lots of them.) and dogfight for air-superiority and scout and missile suppress, and deliver babies... Instead of being a simple replacement for the F-16 and leaving it at that (which the airframe and design are nicely capable of in the "A" model) we have a gold plated budget disaster that just doesn't seem to be getting into the air.
Of course the morons are closing the F-22 line prematurely just when the Soviets (I still use the term... Pootie Poot is a Sov to his core...) are fielding a world class fighter prototype of the same generation to challenge it.
We have serious issues to fix, and no Democrat, or Libertarian, or Tea Partier.. is going to fix it.
It is true that the GOP doesn't rise to the standard of saintly Reaganites marching into a Conservative Utopia. It is a raucous, fractious, sometimes infuriating right of center political party.
However, it is the only game in town to challenge the Pacifists, Marxist Dreamers, Fascists, and Soft-Totalitarians in the Democrat Party.
Let's keep the ordinance aimed down range. Shorts and friendly fire are not helping much.
r/The Mighty Fahvaag
John R. Guardiano| 2.4.10 @ 10:09AM
John -- TMF,
Many thanks for your thoughtful and critical comments, which I genuinely welcome and appreciate. You make good points, not all of which I'll address, save for this one: criticizing Rep. Boehner.
Look, I'm no shill for Boehner, the Republican Party, or any other member of the governing class. I’m an independent journalists and analyst -- and I call them as I see them and let the chips fall where they may: because ultimately, I believe, the truth will serve us all best.
If the facts and the truth hurt Boehner and the Republican Party, then too bad. Maybe exposing them will help them to shape up and do better next time.
Boehner is a paid member of Congress, and has been for some time. He's also in a position of House Republican leadership -- hell, he is the House GOP leader!
So if Boehner -- or any other Congressman, Democrat or Republican -- is going to mouth off in a halfcocked manner with half-baked ideas, then you're damn right: I'm going to call them out on it. And in fact, like Boehner, you too don't specify what, exactly, it is that you want to cut in the defense budget.
I am open-minded about cutting waste in any governmental agency, including the Department of Defense; but unless and until you are specific, be quiet and don’t talk: Because mouthing inanities about cutting the defense budget simply helps the anti-defense caucus take money away from our military – away from our Soldiers and Marines – so that they spend more on wasteful, pork-barrel "stimulus" projects.
That’s what John McCain did last year. He helped to facilitate and to enact some of the most draconian and ill-advised cuts in the defense budget since Jimmy Carter was president. If even GOP officeholders can’t do the right thing, then good riddance to them, too. Enough is enough.
V/R
John
John - TMF| 2.4.10 @ 10:55AM
John,
Ok... ok... I have to give you on your Boehner attitude if you are being a journalist (I greatly respect Honest Journalists... rare as they may be...)
As to Johnny Mac... RINO-Self (since the Media Dumped him...). I held my nose and voted for him knowing that the current occupant of the White House was a looming national disaster... Perhaps the GOP can do much better come 2012.
Pace Paisan... (I am a genuine low vowel Calabrase Italian American despite the last name given to me by my mutt father...)
But remember... One war... and regardless of what The One says, we actually must win it.
Cheers,
John - The Mighty Fahvaag
Drew | 2.7.10 @ 11:56AM
What universe are you guys living in?
To name two of the programs terminated by the Obama administration, the F-22 and additional C-17 transports. To begin with, the airforce itself has said they don't need additional C-17s. The only reason they were in prior defense bills was pure porkbarrel spending. You'd think that conservatives would applaud cutting out waste and pork. But I guess when its done by a Democrat, its evidence of his desire to "dismember" the US military.
The F-22 program deserved to be cut. It was a plae designed to fight a battle with an enemy that no longer exists. The "stealth" plane that the Russians recently announced is, at best, a shell. They are at least a generation or two behind the US in terms of avionics, communications, radar, and engine technology.
What Def. Sec. Gates is doing with the F-35 is exactly what needs to be done. The F-35 program is an ambitious one, and we simply cannot afford to let either the prime contractor or the Pentagon management allow it to slide into a pile of waste and failure.
Any real, objective analysis of the Obama defense budget would conclude that it represents a increase in real terms: 3.9% at a time when inflation is averaging about 1%. The budget also includes real pay increases for military personnel. The Obama administration has also, might I remind you, fully funded the VA - an agency that was shockingly underfunded by the Bush administration.
The technology and development that went into the Future Combat system was not abandoned - instead it was transitions to the Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization program. This was done to reflect lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. The portion of the FCS that was cancelled outright consisted mainly of support for non line-of-sight artillery vehicles - a system that would seem unlikely to be of much use in the sort of wars we are likely to fight in the foreseeable future.
The Obama administration has also taken the honest step of putting the cost of the Afghanstan and Iraq operations into the overall budget, rather than "hiding" them in special appropriations as the Bush team did. And I'm quite sure that Sarah Palin and the rest of the right-wing noise machine will thank him for this honesty by continuing to bleat about "out of control spending." Really.
You want to know what really came close to "dismembering" the US military? How about a poorly planned, legally and morally questionable, $3 trillion adventure in Iraq. One that saw some servicepeople doing three or more year long combat tours. A miserable, on-going war that has driven many of our highly-skilled NCOs and company-grade officers to leave the service. That has torn apart thousands of military families, that has killed four thousand of our best and brightest young men and women; and left us with another generation of young men and women with shattered bodies and minds. we can all thank God that the American people, in their wisdom, chose to elect Obama, rather than the addle-minded McCain - a man who saw no problem with Americans fighting in the thankless streets of Baghdad and Fallujah for another "hundred years" - if that what it took to establish his Conservative street-cred.
S.L. Toddard| 2.4.10 @ 10:08AM
Let us hope there are real cuts in our war budget some day, rather than the fictional ones the author cites.
S.L. Toddard| 2.4.10 @ 10:13AM
"It is a false choice, because defense spending actually can help to spark economic growth and development here in the United States"
Please note that the author agrees with Obama that Big Government can spend us out of this recession.
John R. Guardiano| 2.4.10 @ 10:57AM
Mr. Toddard,
Thanks for your comments, which I do appreciate.
I never said that "Big Government can spend us out of this recession." I don't agree with that, of course.
However, not all government spending is created equal. Some government spending is better than other government spending; and some government spending has more salutary economic effects than other government spending.
Generally speaking, it is better for our military, and our economy, to spend money on defense than on, say, makeshift "jobs programs" here in the states.
Especially today, military spending dovetails nicely with the type of economic activity that is so essential to American dynamism. Please read the "defense stimulus" piece that I wrote for FrumForum. http://bit.ly/cEgxqO
Regards,
John
Al Adab| 2.4.10 @ 10:49AM
Makes sense to me. Cut the budget on one of the few Constitutionally mandated (enumerated) powers in order to follow a central planning agenda of federal control and social programs. Yep, that is Liberty in action.
How the Citizens will defend their Constitution and their Liberty against their government remains to be seen. The fact that they must is clear. Should the ballot box fail, what is left?
The Left, like America's enemies around the world, believes we are the problem. In a certain sense is that not neo-isolationist thinking? Is the U. S. actually the "focus of evil in the modern world" or rather the "last best hope of mankind"?
If we should fail, the long dark night of tyranny, so common in human history, will again descend upon all until the day when Liberty again is rediscovered by some future generation.
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 11:09AM
Real Salt Lake: One Hit Wonder? – – The Offside – Real Salt Lake … | Real Salt Lake M links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 11:26AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Defense Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 11:26AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Defense Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.10 @ 11:30AM
Al Adab,
Your comment there went straight into my docs file.
Thank you.
John TMF,
thank you for your counterpoint above.
I shall focus on only one of your points.
"". The fact remains that The Obamessiah is hell bent to dismember the US Military. He wants it rendered impotent, crippled by internal social politics, and tool-less. ""
I of course agree, but I hope and pray and WORK toward getting good congress critters in place in November.
I don't believe the communists, (pardon the shorthand), in DC can wreck our fine military in less than two years no matter how hard they try.
We have some seriously wiley military brass that can keep their core programs intact...and will, for four entire years if necessary.
I certainly have no clue what precise systems to focus upon. Among those folks that do, I am sure there are honest disagreements.
Our training, and caliber of men and women is what we can always count on in the final analysis.
(I'm thinking Japanese Zeros vs. Wildcats in the Pacific as an example.)
Al| 2.4.10 @ 11:48AM
Obamessiah, heh :)
Hope you are right about the top brass, but I am leary.
martin j smith| 2.4.10 @ 12:11PM
Obama is being reckless with our national security in regards to his views of dealing with terrorism. The concept of politicizing treatment of detainees, bringing them into civilian courts as well as the emphasis on Politically Correct behavior at TSA ( its incompetence )etc. is in my view reckless and dangerous among other things. Next, is apologizing for this country is foolish, and makes the Presidency and the Nation look weak and indeed we are open to all kinds of mischief. Though Iran,North Korea and Venezuela among others pose dangers in their own way, a great deal of the responsibility for these rogue states existence go to Russia and China. And, here is the bottom line. Obama is not only weakening is in military area but economically as well in the area of energy for example. And, his overall performance on our economy is in my view a National Security disaster. So, Obama is not being reckless ? I beg your pardon but I do not agree !!!!!!!
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 1:39PM
The American Spectator : Obama's Defense Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 1:39PM
The American Spectator : Obama's Defense Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
justplainbill| 2.4.10 @ 2:56PM
God's hand is against Obama. That is because he lied to God's people. He lied about being "African-American". He is bi-racial. He is no more black than white. He lied about what he would and could do for the people. God hates a proud look and a lying tongue. God hates Obama.
You are going to see Obama confounded at every turn.
Bob| 2.4.10 @ 3:14PM
I see your bigotry and lack of knowledge raises its ugly head. In fact, most blacks in the U.S. have whites in their genealogy -- slave owners having sex with their property, etc. Let's see now, if your father is from Italy and your mom is from Scotland, can you call yourself an Italian-American? What percentage does it take to achieve that level?
God hates Obama? I thought you prayed to a loving God. I must have that wrong....
JimE| 2.4.10 @ 7:42PM
Bob,
" slave owners having sex with their property," you mean just like your islamic masters do?
Flee| 2.4.10 @ 3:02PM
Defense is the one true expense the Feds should take care of for all our sakes. Not much else is needed from DC. When will that message get through their thick skulls? Please just leave us alone to keep our earnings whether they be from working on the line or trading stocks. It's all more work than this President has ever done.
martin j smith| 2.4.10 @ 3:57PM
this ar4ticle is about the question of Obama being reckless in his defence of hi9s nation and a significant part his job as President. What in the name of Roumania does the last few posts have to do with that. Why not stick to the issue of Obama's policies. I think they are reckless--what about others--are or are they not. Everyone has an oppinion--share why don't you.
Tim| 2.4.10 @ 4:34PM
As noted above: F-35 is next to go.
Also, while not a defense project, NASA's Constellation program was dropped unceremoniously: can't have anything that might embody American technical leadership under an Obama Presidency.
Red Phillips | 2.4.10 @ 5:47PM
So now we have "conservatives" for NASA? You have got to be kidding me. What Artcle and section of the Constitution authorizes NASA and space exploration? Good grief!
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.10 @ 6:50PM
Red,
That was truly funny. Thank you!
George Washington and Madison, and well...all of them didn't believe in conquering "new frontiers"?
Sir, you are too stupid to be let out of the house to cross the street.
That being the case, snuggle up and write us another joke.
Red Phillips | 2.4.10 @ 10:39PM
So Ken, what part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes space exploration for space exploration’s sake? (You could argue for a defense related space program.) Maybe it's nestled in there with the patent power or something. It's called enumerated powers Ken. Look it up. It's what authentic conservative believe.
Red Phillips | 2.4.10 @ 11:24PM
So Ken, what part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes space exploration for space exploration’s sake? (You could argue for a defense related space program.) Maybe it's nestled in there with the patent power or something. It's called enumerated powers Ken. Look it up. It's what authentic conservative believe.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.5.10 @ 12:18AM
Brushing up on some recollections from decades past and Googling for Wiki info - in particular - for a refresher on specific histories related to certain known 'secret' military R&D
operations, it might be noteworthy to consider in context 'military edge technologies' understandably cloaked for security reasons for the present; yet factored into DOF future considerations of:
Bone crushing National Security via a via would
be idiot enemies.
Heck - do we need premium technologies which will be superceded by simply the timely unveiling of superior higher-caliber technologies to
shoot off enemy butts with?
Consider:
Area 51 - budgeted!
Black projects - budgeted!
Perhaps other super-secret R&D facilities - budgeted.
I does not believe that our faithful US Military is on a suicide mission - notwithstanding public postures/appearances of Gates nor BHO nor the
pansies (no reference to homosexuals) in Congress to seemingly short-change our mighty defending forces!
Yo - US military Spartans!
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 10:09AM
About Obama Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 5:04PM
Obama’s Defense Budget #fb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Hydraulic Cylinder | 2.8.10 @ 4:10AM
Fivestar Tools,a professional china Hydraulic Cylinder manufacturer,we can offer hydraulic cylinders,hydraulic jack and double acting hydraulic cylinders.
Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 11:22AM
NASA Budget VS Social Programs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 3:19PM
2010 NFL Draft: Mike Singletary, San Francisco 49ers Still Need … | San Francisco 49e links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jack Urso| 6.27.10 @ 8:06PM
I recently interview a couple industry experts on the defense budget. I thought their insights might add to the conversation -
The 2010 Defense Budget: Spending Increases Shift Investment Opportunities - Jack Urso
There's been a lot of speculation about the 2010 U.S. defense budget. Despite a $21 billion increase, many news reports have focused on the loss of big ticket items, such as the cap on F-22 Raptor production. Additionally, the Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicle program has been scrapped, as the design would have rendered the vehicles practically useless for combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Less reported, however, is the fact that the increase in the defense budget will result in an increase in the force structure and a shift in support services expenditures. While a $21 billion increase implies new investing opportunities, there are still potential financial landmines to avoid.
Implications
Bob Nugent, Vice President of Advisory Services for AMI International, which provides naval intelligence reports to navies, shipbuilders, and naval equipment manufacturers, reviewed the 2010 defense budget and discussed its implications for the financial investor.
"The DoD (Department of Defense) is making a concerted effort to reorient the direction of the budget towards lower-intensity programs and capabilities as opposed to big ticket items," reported Nugent. "The other part of the reorientation is going towards manpower because both the Marine Corp and the Army have increased their force structure significantly in response to what's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, a larger portion of the defense budget will also go toward personnel accounts."
One effect this shift will have is an impact on the military vehicle market, which enjoyed growth over the past decade. While the military will always need to get around, sales of military vehicles are expected to fall off a bit, as indicated by the loss of the FCS program.
"We're seeing a larger portion of the money going towards things like rifles, vehicles, personnel gear, and tactical communications, as opposed to fighter planes and big cruisers," Nugent stated.
According to Josh Cohen, Defense and Aerospace Analyst with Fletcher/CSI, a competitive intelligence and business consulting firm, “For defense companies, diversifying their manufacturing capabilities can help weather the storm of DoD project and budget cuts, which are not likely to slow anytime soon."
Cuts like a Knife
One wildly publicized part of the budget concerns the production of the F-22 Raptor. Although production of the F-22 has been capped at 187 aircraft, four more than approved under the Bush administration in 2005, planned production has continued to drop over the past two decades. The cap means that the F-22 program will lose 13,000 jobs by 2011.
The conventional wisdom notes that the increase in F-35 production will add 44,000 jobs, more than making up the jobs lost in the F-22 program (both are manufactured by Lockheed Martin). So, problem solved. No worries, right?
Well, earnest investor, don't fire those financial afterburners just yet!
"There may be some shift in resources between the F-22 and F-35, but the F-35 is a troubled program," reports Nugent. "It's not really in a position to replace the jobs lost by the budget process for the F-22. The defense cuts do paint a pretty grim picture for that industrial infrastructure. So, there's significant concern on this issue."
There are industrial infrastructure concerns that will be affected by the future trends in the defense budget, not only in fighter planes and aerospace, but shipping as well. As the government reduces production of high-end, or big ticket, military hardware, highly skilled workers, with thousands of dollars invested in their training and education, may no longer find work that utilizes their highly-specialized skills.
"Very skilled and irreplaceable human resources are going to go away and nobody's coming in their wake," Nugent grimly noted.
Logistics
An army marches on its stomach, as Napoleon once said, so support services are essential components of any modern military force structure. Extended operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have underscored this need, which for a modern army entails more than just food and equipment.
The 2010 defense budget reduces "support service contractors" from the current 39-percent of the workforce down to a pre-2001 level of 26-percent. However, that doesn't mean the military is cutting back on support the troops in the field, in fact, just the opposite.
Bob Nugent explains: "In the last ten years, large numbers of civilian contractors have taken up those jobs that in past have been filled by people in uniform. What they're talking about doing now is shifting it into a mix of government people as opposed to just civilians. There'll be civilians, but they'll be government service civilians, working for the U.S. government."
This in turn may affect the portfolio of companies which have been providing civilians to perform those services.
“With budgets being cut and competition increasing, those defense and aerospace firms with a keen awareness of their competition’s activities, and the ability to meet the government’s unique requirements, will likely end up winning more contracts,” said Cohen.
Housing
One confusing statistic in the 2010 defense budget is the fact that while military construction is going up 19-percent, family housing is going down about 20-percent. Is the military actually cutting housing during a time of extended overseas operations?
"I think the decrease in family housing is a little misleading because what a lot of the services have done in the last ten years has been to privatize military housing," commented Nugent. "The Navy, the Army, and the Air Force are contracting it out, so I'd want to peel back that number on military housing and see how much of that is actually represented by spending on their own properties as opposed to money going to outsource people that are handling construction and maintenance of military housing. So, that's been a trend in the last ten years."
One area of dramatic outsourcing by the military has been in counseling, education, and related base facilities. While the government has been assimilating some of those responsibilities into its force structure in recent years, Nugent feels it’s a trend that will reverse itself.
"I think the military is very happy to have somebody else be their housing managers, their recreation managers, what have you, as opposed to putting government civilians back in those jobs," Nugent said. "If there's an area where I see the trend isn't very pronounced, or the reversal of the trend isn't going to be as pronounced, it’s in an area like support services and family housing."
Trends Analysis
Analyzing a trend requires a bit more research than scanning the headlines and listening to the latest network talking heads. Certainly, there are cuts in big ticket items, but Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are in high demand and the budget line for the Littoral Combat Ship has increased. Defense electronics will be a growth area, as well as small arms, personnel equipment, and communications gear.
While some support services, such as housing, will continue the trend of being outsourced to civilian contractors, other aspects will be folded into government service, and some others will see a mix of government and civilian workers.
Cohen, of Fletcher/CSI, noted, "We see a lot of requests to look into markets that are not specifically military orientated, such as IR sensors, civilian armored vehicles, remote undersea vehicles, and testing equipment for communications and radar systems. This is definitely a trend, but businesses with little to no experience working with the government need guidance in determining what contracts to bid for and what technology to invest in."
Investing in the defense industry is not a passive activity. It reflects not just the direction of the defense budget, but the country as well. It's more than asking whether we'll be building ships and planes tomorrow. It also means asking whether anyone will be around to build the hardware we'll need tomorrow if we don't invest in those programs today.
explosion proof light | 11.15.10 @ 9:00AM
Obama's stage props, the guys with the white jackets, are here to take you away, to the funny farm, where everything will be alright.
porno | 12.14.10 @ 10:13PM
thank you Obama's stage props, the guys with the white jackets, are here to take you away1
Converse | 8.12.11 @ 3:54AM
is good