Panetta Deliberates on Military Cuts After Wars End in Iraq and Afghanistan

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Panetta to Offer Budget Strategy Cutting Military,” describes some momentous decisions our new Defense Secretary will have to make about the future of our country.

Chief among them is the military doctrine that we will maintain the capability to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time. This proved to be impractical with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is a debate about how much nation-building the army should be responsible for in any case.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that cuts of about $450 billion are sustainable, but that represents only eight percent of the military budget, and steeper draw downs occurred after the end of the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War. Most importantly, the debate over what areas to reduce is a critical one.

Military personnel costs account for about a third of the budget, and many are focusing on this area, especially the generous retirement benefits. On the other hand, we maintain a lot of personnel at bases overseas, and even a conservative such as Tom Coburn noted we could still maintain our capabilities if we just left air bases and naval ports open as logistical links.

Two other large strategic items include the order of 2,500 F-35 stealth jets and the amount needed for replacement costs for our nuclear delivery triad, systems that are nearing the end of their useful service. The size for both of them is predicated on the likelihood of fighting an army with an advanced military capability.