2009/03/24 15:28:00
Issue: The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, asserts that military manpower requirements and accelerated wear/aging of weapons/equipment over many years of war will necessitate sustaining defense budgets of at least 4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the foreseeable future.
Background: The experience of more than eight years of war has highlighted the grave dangers inherent in planning only for optimistic military contingency scenarios in today’s dangerous world. Over the last decade, the Executive and Legislative Branches have collectively incurred excessive levels of risk in the Nation’s long-term national defense posture by:
- Sizing our military forces below the levels needed to meet potential conflict scenarios
- Delaying force increases in over-optimistic hope for early resolution of the war
- Imposing budget-(vs. requirements-)driven Navy/USAF strength cuts to fund war needs
- Deferring action to replace aging weapons systems and war-worn equipment
- Shifting money from quality-of-life and “people programs” to fund operations
- Imposing 100% of wartime national sacrifice on 1% of the population: military families
Despite unprecedented demands on our all-volunteer force, Defense leaders have asserted to Congress that “military people cost too much” -- even while acknowledging the incalculable value of their ever-increasing sacrifices.
Defense leaders claim that compensation and benefits improvements Congress previously approved to correct longstanding inequities now consume resources needed for weapons systems – as if weapons and people program requirements were mutually exclusive.
Some congressional leaders have indicated that planned increases in Army and Marine Corps end strength could be sacrificed to fund weapons needs.
MOAA Position: Seven years of war have left military people and weapons vastly overstressed. The world’s richest nation can and must fund both its military people and weapons needs, even in these tough economic times. .
- We must grow significantly larger forces to be better prepared, whether we stay in Iraq or not, to be better prepared for the next unexpected contingency than we were for this one
- Any drawdown of forces in Iraq will be offset by increased deployments to Afghanistan, so cutbacks in planned force growth would only worsen the expected pace of deployments.
- Aging weapons with useful lives further shortened by war must be replaced and upgraded
- Very large personnel and weapons regeneration budgets will be required to rebuild future readiness, regardless of progress in Iraq
- At about 4% of GDP, the defense budget is a historic low share of the national economy, and projected to decline further -- vs. the peacetime-year average 5.7% since WWII (see reverse)
- Cutting one essential readiness component (personnel) to fund another – in wartime – would consciously increase the already intolerable burdens imposed on military families.
- Such insensitivity to their sacrifices would only further undermine retention and readiness
Key Bills: Senator James Inhofe has introduced S.J. Res 10 and Congressman Trent Franks has introduced the companion bill H.R. Res 23. This bills declare that it is U.S. policy to commit a minimum of 4% of the nation's gross domestic product to the base defense budget in order to meet the fundamental U.S. national security requirements.
