Robert Gates has warned that President Obama’s order to cut $400 billion from the US defence and security budgets over the next 12 years could leave America incapable of ever fighting simultaneously on two fronts again.
The prospect of a dramatic change to America’s global defence posture, with the Pentagon opting out of certain missions, is being seen as the latest evidence of the so-called Obama doctrine under which the US would no longer to be viewed as the automatic provider of military power around the world.
The stance that was taken in Libya, with the US handing the leadership role and most of the attack missions to allies, has been an early demonstration of the President’s more withdrawn approach.
However, with the $400 billion (£240 billion) cost-cutting directive hanging over him, Mr Gates, the Defence Secretary, has warned that significant reductions to his budget would have consequences for America’s role on the global stage and for allies and coalition partners.
Mr Gates started a review last week of all Pentagon expenditure, intended to highlight the potential consequences that would follow.
The Defence Secretary, who has spoken out in the past against targeting the Pentagon budget to ease the deficit problems, said that he intended to draw up his list “in stark terms”.
“If you begin cutting off missions, if you begin by saying, OK, what if you weren’t able to fight two regional conflicts at the same time, then what are the implications of that for the [US armed] force?” he said.
In January Mr Gates announced that he had scheduled a defence spending cut of $78 billion over five years, including a reduction of up to 47,000 troops. He also announced plans to save $100 billion over five years by eliminating waste and duplication, but he insisted on transferring the savings to frontline troops.
His efficiency drive was praised, not least by Mr Obama. So the order from the President to cut another $400 billion to help bring down the huge national debt, came out of the blue. In fact, Mr Gates had only 24 hours’ notice.
Two of the most expensive equipment procurement programmes that are to be reviewed are the annual $14 billion spent on shipbuilding and the $11 billion a year on the development of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter in which Britain is also investing.
However, Jim Thomas, a former senior official at the Pentagon who is now with the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said that real savings were more likely to come from reduced personnel spending — cuts in manpower, benefits and medical care. Both the US Army and the Marine Corps will be facing cuts.
Mr Gates has made it clear that investments in certain equipment have to be made, such as a replacement for ageing air-refuelling tankers.
As part of the Pentagon’s annual budget of about $530 billion, which excludes the $117 billion-a-year cost of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Navy operates 11 aircraft carriers. Even Mr Gates, who is due to retire in the summer, has questioned whether the US can still afford to run such a large fleet of carriers.
The result of the cost-cutting exercise will have potentially huge military and political repercussions for the US. Individual Congress members will fight their corners for specific programmes and bases in their constituencies. The message from the White House however is that the Pentagon has to take the lead role in helping to cut the deficit.
A smaller military would fit in with Mr Obama’s preference for a more restricted global security role and his belief that other nations should take a bigger share of the burden. His priority is the economy, and to justify his decision to take a large slice out of the Pentagon budget, Mr Obama made a point recently of repeating and agreeing with the words of Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a recent television interview Admiral Mullen, who is also due to retire this year, said: “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”
Mr Gates and his successor, therefore, will have to find ways of slashing the defence budget without irreparably damaging America’s fighting ability.
© Times Newspapers Ltd 2011
Registered in England