With the announcement by Secretary Gates yesterday of significant cuts to key defense programs, you would think that liberals would be celebrating. Surprisingly, some think that Gates didn't go far enough. The lead article in today's "Progress Report" put out by the Center for American Progress (CAP) describes the defense budget as "bloated" and includes a section titled "Could Have Gone Further." Turns out CAP released a report in December 2008 called "Building a Military for the 21st Century" which includes such essential recommendations for a successful 21st century military as "repealing the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell' law" and "cancel unproven missile defense systems."
CAP now seems a bit upset that Secretary Gates didn't take their December 2008 report and put the DoD seal on it and submit it to OMB. One of their bloggers even provides a helpful side by side comparison of key elements of the CAP and Gates proposals. While their recommendations were largely consistent with Gates' plans for the F-22, the Air Force Tanker, and the Littoral Combat ship, there were some differences, most notably on missile defense, which did not get completely axed as CAP had hoped.
In addition to calling for cancellation of "unproven missile defense systems," the December 2008 report cites critics who claim that missile defenses "needlessly provoke Russia." Their report goes on to note that the Obama Administration could save $25 billion "by canceling missile defense altogether." That seems to be the "re-balancing" of priorities they are still pitching. Today's Politico reports that Rep. Barney Frank "estimates he could whack another $60 billion from Defense using a list pitched by Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress that takes aim at weapons systems such as Virginia-class submarines and the Missile Defense Agency's entire budget of about $10 billion." Submarines and missile defense -- who needs them? It seems that for CAP, it is okay to fight nasty insurgents in places such as Afghanistan (and Iraq for another 18 months), using kinetic means as well as increased civilian reconstruction and development aid, but when it comes to Russia, China, and other potential state challengers, the key is to avoid "provoking" them.
Unfortunately, Secretary Gates seems to be making the same miscalculation regarding the strategic environment facing the United States in the 21st century. Even if CAP and Secretary Gates are correct to assume that we have nothing to fear from a resurgent Russia, a rising China, or an ever-expanding group of rogue regimes with nuclear weapons and advanced missile capabilities (and that is a very shaky assumption), they are ignoring the role that these defense programs play in deterring these countries from challenging us.
Rep. John McHugh, Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, seems to grasp this concerning strategic shift at the Pentagon and made his concerns known in his statement yesterday after Gates' announcement:
"Secretary Gates' statement includes significant programmatic decisions that seem to be based on assumptions about the current security environment. The Congress needs to ensure it understands and agrees with these assumptions about the threat we face before we can endorse decisions on the capabilities our military does and does not require."
Let's hope that as the budget details are reviewed by Congress next month, members of Congress force the administration to justify this shift in strategic thinking. Otherwise, CAP and other organizations on the left will fill the void and we'll be left with a military that's ready to fight the wars of the last decade rather than the next century.
