By Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Laicie Olson

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. – President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Invoking the memory of President Eisenhower’s farewell address last weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a fiery speech aimed at overhauling the Pentagon’s budget and restructuring its bureaucracy.

This rhetoric is anything but new, and builds on previous initiatives set out by the Secretary.  

Just last Monday at a Navy League conference, Gates urged the Navy and Marine Corps to think more deeply about the challenges facing their costliest platforms – including aircraft carriers that run $11 billion each, future ballistic missile submarines costing $7 billion apiece and a Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle “suited only to Eisenhower’s D-Day planning.”

While he later joked that he is “not crazy” and wouldn’t just cut out a carrier, the speech ruffled more than a few feathers.

It also pointed to just a few of the many extreme cases in which U.S. defense outweighs that of other countries (h/t to Chris Hellman):

The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered.  In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.

The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to our allies or friends.  Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined.

All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.

“It is not a great mystery what needs to change,” Gates said. “What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices — choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon and out.”

Gates is seeking $10 to $15 billion in savings from the $547-billion Pentagon base budget, a number that has risen to astronomical heights:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade… Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.

This cut will not, however – as one might expect – contribute to an overall lowering of the Pentagon’s budget.  Instead, resources will be redirected, as they usually are, to fund more essential and more relevant capabilities – “tail to tooth,” as they say.

Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to be helpful. It sees the Defense budget as a jobs bill; continually appropriating funds for such programs as yet more unneeded C-17 aircraft and an unwanted second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It also loads the budget with billions to reward contributors and fund pet projects.  

In future Pentagon budgets, Gates hopes to cut overhead costs and transfer the savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget.

“What I’m asking for is not a simple budget cut; I’m talking about changing the way we do business. It’s taking the savings from that and applying it to long-term investments,” he said. “This is a lot harder than cutting the budget for one year.”

This may not be the revolution some had hoped for, but it may be a start.

Gates did not attack the Pentagon’s misguided procurement requests or call for a freeze on defense spending, but he did call for setting real priorities, and he even specified a few.

Lamenting that the gap between him and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers, Gates noted that “A request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan – or for any other unit – has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with.”

Therefore, as the Defense Department begins the process of preparing next’s years Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, I am directing the military services, the joint staff, the major functional and regional commands, and the civilian side of the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing look at how they operate – in substance and style alike.

According to rumors, Gates may be building a second portfolio of cuts similar in scope to those he made on April 6, 2009.

“When it came to defense matters, under Eisenhower, real choices were made, priorities set and limits enforced.”  If Gates meant what he said on Saturday, the cuts will be substantial.

While everyone may still be talking about Gates’ recent speeches at the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Exposition and Eisenhower Library (analysis to come), Gates delivered another speech this past week you may be interested in (h/t to Small Wars Journal).

The speech addressed students at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and focused on an issue I’m sure we are all very familiar with:

Good afternoon.  Thank you, Kevin, for the introduction.  I can tell you it is good to be out of D.C. and back in my home state – at least for a short visit.

However, I realize that it is Friday, and after lunch, so I will be content with thanking you for staying awake, or trying to anyway.

Of course, falling asleep in a leadership class or here is one thing.  Falling asleep in a small meeting with the president of the United States is quite another.  But it happens.  I was in one cabinet meeting with President Reagan where the president and six members of the cabinet all fell asleep.

In fact, the first President Bush created an award to honor the American official who most ostentatiously fell asleep in a meeting with the president.  This was not frivolous.  He evaluated candidates on three criteria – first, duration – how long did they sleep?  Second, the depth of the sleep; snoring always got you extra points.  And third, the quality of recovery – did one just quietly open one’s eyes and return to the meeting, or did you jolt awake – and maybe spill something hot in the process?  Well, you will appreciate that the award was named for Air Force Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, who was the national security adviser at the time.  He was, as you might suspect, the first awardee, and, I might add, won many oak leaf clusters.

Click here for the full transcript.

On Tuesday House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation castigating the Obama administration for allegedly weakening U.S. national security.  The New START treaty was the subject of particular derision.  Said Can…

According to new analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, should all three of Britain’s main political parties meet the budget commitments detailed in their election manifestos, then the UK looks set to face the biggest public spending cuts in over a generation.  The report suggests that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will have to make cuts on a scale not seen since the 1970s, when Prime Minister Jim Callaghan’s government was forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help in propping up the country.

In face of the UK’s record deficit, all three political parties have been strikingly reticent about their economic plans – with all of the manifestos significantly under-reporting the likely historic austerity measures that will have to be implemented.  In monetary terms, the Conservatives, who are seeking to close the budget deficit the quickest, would have to find savings of £63.7 billion by 2014/15.  If implemented, such a reduction in spending would represent the sharpest, most sustained public spending cuts since the end of World War II.  To date the Conservatives have identified only 17.7 per cent of these reductions.

Labour needs to find cuts of £50.8 billion, but have identified just 13.3 per cent of them.  And the Liberal Democrats, who plan to raise taxes the most, have only so far identified a quarter of the £46.5 billion savings they would need to find.

All three parties have so far identified a number of third rail issues that will not face cuts, for example in public health, education or in some cases, defense.  As such, whoever leads the next government will be forced to make the savings by reducing spending from unprotected areas, such as the majority of government departments, projects and welfare programs.

Such will be the dramatic impact on public spending that the Financial Times (FT) has created an online ‘game’ in which players can decide how best to claw back the money required.  Some of the options available to players include cutting funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by 10%, stopping the building of primary and secondary schools for three years, freezing all benefits and tax credits for a year, and cutting the public sector payroll by 7%.  But even combining these four suggestions, a Government would only save £22.6 billion, well short of the figures suggested by the IFS.

The proposals put forward in the FT simulation represent some realistic approaches to reducing the budget deficit.  But when asked which of them Labour would not implement upon winning an election, Secretary of State Peter Mandelson sheepishly responded ‘When I last looked, neither the IFS nor the FT was standing in this election’.

Interestingly, the FT’s simulation does not offer players the option of scaling back on Trident renwal, because it ‘would not save enough money over the three-year period to be included.’  This is a fair point, because current proposals to reduce the fleet of Trident submarines from four to three will lead to only modest savings of approximately £3 billion.

Perhaps, then, it is time to think on a grander scale.  With the winning Government scheduled to make the main investment in Trident renewal (estimated to cost up to £76 billion) between 2012 – 2014, it now seems the perfect time to re-evaluate the necessity of Britain’s nuclear weapons.

This wouldn’t be the first time that proposals to eliminate the UK’s nuclear arsenal received a hearing at the highest levels. When the UK last faced similar economic problems, some voices within Prime Minister Callaghan’s government suggested that serious thought be given to sacrificing Trident on the altar of economic solvency.

The difference between now and then of course, is that the UK’s economic troubles coincide with the fact that the Cold War has ended and the UK now faces a far less threatening international threat environment.

While there would certainly be costs associated with abolition, as much as £76 billion could be saved in the short-term by deciding not to pursue a follow-on to Trident.  Doing so could also make substantial inroads into reducing the budget deficit.  Furthermore, the fact that the move is supported by 58% of the electorate suggests that it could be achieved without too much political pain.

If the figures presented by the IFS are indeed accurate, then the only alternative will be to pursue a harsh austerity plan.  And as the example of Greece shows, following this policy could prove dangerously unpopular with the electorate.