Senate Republicans could do Chuck Hagel a great favor. Instead
of lifting their half-hearted filibuster and enabling his
confirmation, they could make the filibuster real and thus protect
the former Nebraska senator from the budget hell that will greet
him at the Pentagon’s door.
On March 1, right around the time Hagel’s confirmation will
probably occur, the Pentagon budget will be hit by sequestration
under the 2011 Budget Control Act. Sequestration — at four
syllables, too long a word to use in politics — is part of the BCA
that automatically imposes about $600 billion in spending cuts on
the Pentagon over the next ten years, on top of the $487 billion
already cut by President Obama.
Both Congress and the White House say that they don’t want
sequestration to be imposed, but neither has been able to do more
than postpone it. The final postponement expires on February 28.
The ax will fall the next day.
Three problems will make sequestration impossible for Hagel to
deal with.
First is the unlaudable conduct of his predecessor. Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta — a former budget director and presumed
expert — had, until last month, utterly refused to plan for the
sequestration since the failure of the BCA’s “supercommittee” in
November 2011. In February 2012, Panetta said, “As the president
has pointed out and I’ve emphasized, we are not paying attention to
sequester.”
All Panetta did was to tell Congress how horrible it would be if
sequestration were imposed. But he refused — apparently at the
president’s direction — to plan how to manage it. It was an
irresponsible decision for Panetta to reach. There was no reason —
other than politics — for him to refuse to plan for the impact on
the services’ ability to perform the missions for which they are
responsible. But refuse he did.
Equally irresponsible were the actions of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff who didn’t rebel against Panetta’s refusal to plan. By their
silence, they approved Panetta’s refusal to plan. In April 2012,
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that sequestration
would result in a hollow force and require a change in our defense
strategy. Only a few weeks ago did Panetta relent and the planning
began.
Now, the Joint Chiefs and Hagel will have to deal with the
immediate impact of about $55 billion in sudden cuts in Pentagon
spending in the remainder of FY2013. Instead of spreading that
amount over the whole fiscal year — which began in October — the
cuts will have to be imposed in only six months.
To make that happen, Hagel will have to cancel or impose major
reductions on major weapon system contracts. But which ones? The
troubled F-35 was supposed to provide a universal solution to the
needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. But after ten years, the
F-35 still hasn’t achieved operational status. The new Air Force
tanker is, as I’ve written many times over the past decade,
desperately needed to support our entire military, not just the Air
Force. And which Navy ships will be cancelled? (The Navy has
already delayed the refueling and overhaul of the USS Abraham
Lincoln, leaving the ship and its air wing in port
indefinitely.)
The problem with canceling or delaying programs is that cuts
result in increased unit prices. Terminating contracts results in
paying “termination costs” to the contractor, for which the
government gets nothing.
The F-35 is now up to more than $120 million per aircraft. If
the production rate is cut, that price could double. A Secretary
Hagel will end up spending more for fewer aircraft, ships, and land
vehicles.
Which leads to the second problem Hagel will face.
It all boils down to the fact that policy takes money to
implement. The less money you have, the less you can do.
In the State of the Union address, the president barely
mentioned defense. He said he wants to strengthen missile defense
and continue supporting the Karzai regime after U.S. troops finally
withdraw from Afghanistan next year. Obama’s global strategy, such
as it is, calls for the reorientation of our military posture,
shifting from the Atlantic theater to the Pacific. He has said we
would not permit Iran to have nuclear weapons and would eliminate
North Korea’s nuclear weapons. And, among other things, he’s
promised a sea-based missile defense system to Poland as a
substitute for the ground-based system promised by George Bush.
Sequestration, as Panetta has said, will result in the smallest
navy since 1915, the smallest Air Force fleet since the Air Force
was created, and vast reductions in the capabilities of the Army
and Marines.
In short, Obama’s strategy cannot — as General Dempsey has said
— be supported by so small a military. We will, as Dempsey has also
said, have to give up certain missions. But which ones? If we
abandon Europe entirely — breaking Obama’s promise to Poland,
ending our failing NATO alliance — the military will still be
unable to protect American interests and allies in the Pacific
region.
Our adversaries know this. Last week, Russian jets circled our
exposed forces in Guam. China is building new stealthy aircraft,
new submarines and surface ships equipped with new ship-killing
missiles to deny us the ability to interfere with its ambitions. It
is also conducting an aggressive cyberwar against us with espionage
and interference with the functioning of essential satellites.
How will Obama and Hagel deal with China’s aggression around
Japan’s Senkaku Islands if it flares into war? We don’t have — and
cannot afford to build — the ships and aircraft it will take to
deal with this crisis, or with North Korea’s threats to target
America with nuclear armed missiles. Which leads us to the third
problem Hagel will face.
To put it bluntly, Hagel isn’t equipped by intelligence,
experience, or expertise to deal simultaneously with the threats we
face even with a fully-equipped, trained, and ready military. Hagel
was a deer in the headlights in his confirmation hearing. He will
be the weakest defense secretary since Clinton appointed former
congressman Les Aspin to the Pentagon’s top job.
Aspin will be an unfortunate role model for Hagel. When Aspin
was secretary of defense, as I’ve learned from people who were in
high Pentagon positions at the time, he would rush in every morning
and undo every decision that had been made the day before. Aspin
tossed everything up in the air every day. But it was peacetime,
and Aspin had a strong military around him that prevented his
mismanagement from causing a real disaster.
Hagel will take over in the midst of a war, and on the brink of
more and larger conflicts. He won’t make decisions unless Obama
dictates them. And the military won’t object. They’ve neutered
themselves by not not refusing to go along with what Obama has
already done. To his credit, Gen. Dempsey warned Congress last week
that the Pentagon can’t give Congress one more dollar in cuts. But
he won’t do what is required to make the point.
It’s been seventeen years since a general resigned rather than
go along with a decision he believed was wrong. Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. Ron Fogelman quit rather than blame an innocent man for
the Khobar Towers bombing. No general or admiral since has had that
courage.
With the weakest defense secretary in two decades and a
careerist military, Obama will continue our gradual abdication of
the role of a superpower. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and China —
just to name the obvious — will continue their aggression
unchecked.
Policy without money to accomplish it is as weak and ineffectual
as diplomacy unsupported by military force. Obama’s policies are
bankrupt in both regards.
We are entering an era of instability and war that will
accelerate a global realignment dominated by our enemies. With
Obama and Hagel in charge for the next four years, that realignment
will mean that the 21st century will belong to them
unless their successors can revive both our economy and our
defenses. The longer it takes to begin that revival, the less
possible it will be to accomplish.
Photo: UPI
