Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for Nukes of Hazard blog

Gates Calls for Real Spending Priorities

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.

Gates’ Other Speech

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.

Iran and North Korea – Growing Connections

News has surfaced that Iran has invited Kim Jong-Il to Tehran in order to ‘to further economic ties’.  The invitation comes amid a flurry of recent diplomatic contact between the two states.  Two weeks ago, an Iranian delegation led by Vice-Minister Mohammad Ali Fathollahi met with Kim Yong Nam, de facto head of the North Korean state, to hold talks regarding ‘bilateral political, economic and cultural relations’ and ‘international and regional issues’.  Last week Iran’s ‘Press TV’ subsequently reported that Kim Yong Nam will visit Iran this summer to launch a ‘scientific and cultural exchange program’ between the two countries.  

Even if suggestions that Kim Jong-Il has an aversion to flight are true (thus rendering the idea of him visiting Tehran unfeasible), that the invitation was sent is in and of itself significant.  Indeed, it marks the greatest diplomatic contact between the two countries since their recognition of one another diplomatically in 1979.  Given their shared history of missile collaboration, however, these closer ties raise some disconcerting questions…

Regarding economic relations, Iran’s Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said in 2007, that ‘Both nations can cooperate in the fields of exploration, production and other fields of the energy sector’.  It is well known that Pyongyang has had difficulties obtaining crude oil for many years, and that Tehran lacks enough refined petroleum to meet domestic demand.  As such, Hammeneh summarized his Iranian-Korean proposal as ‘North Korea [getting] oil from Iran and [providing] Iran with a surplus of its own refined petrol’.  However, a closer look reveals that this concept doesn’t quite add up.

According to research released by Choi Su Young just three months after Hamaneh’s statement, North Korea was at the time importing its ‘entire amount of petroleum for transportation and production’.  The CIA World Factbook 2010 states today that this situation remains unchanged, with North Korea only importing – not exporting – petroleum.  Indeed, so reliant has the DPRK’s been on importing petroleum that it remains highly unlikely that Pyongyang has ever had a surplus of petroleum to export.  Thus, the notion that North Korea might import extra heavy oil from Iran to refine it into petroleum for export back to the Iranian market seems far fetched, especially due to the extreme distances and costs involved.  So if North Korea is getting oil from Iran, what might Pyongyang be getting in return?

Well, history shows that in the 1980s and early 1990s Iran got arms in return.  Early in its war with Iraq, Tehran bartered with North Korea to obtain conventional Soviet technology in exchange for crude oil.  Similarly, Iran used its oil in 1993 to invest in the research and development of North Korea’s new No-Dong missile, which helped greatly in the establishment of an indigenous Iranian missile production infrastructure.

Recent reports suggest that Iran may be continuing to purchase arms from North Korea – although with what intensity is unclear.  An article from 2007 stated that Iran may have received four mini submarines from North Korea.  In August 2009, the UAE intercepted a ship carrying DPRK-manufactured munitions bound for Iran.  And just days ago, Shimon Peres stated that North Korean entities were continuing to supply weapons to both Iran and its affiliates, although admittedly without any evidence.

Whether Iran is still purchasing missile technology from the DPRK today seems less likely, due to the more advanced state of the Iranian missile / space program.  That said, there does appear to still be some evidence detailing scientific cooperation in this area, with Iranian nationals allegedly dispatched to North Korea to assist in last April’s attempted satellite launch.  The Department of Defense’s April 2010 report on Iran’s military power states that “In developing and expanding its missile program, Iran has received assistance from North Korea and China,” but it does not elaborate on what form this assistance has taken or when it occurred.

In the nuclear domain it is interesting to note the sympathetic regard Iran and North Korea have for each other’s respective programs.  Following North Korea’s 2006 test Iran targeted the totality of its criticism at the U.S (for provoking it). Likewise, following Pyongyang’s 2009 test, Tehran simply denied that it had been involved – it did not criticize North Korea.  For its part, North Korea’s ambassador to Tehran, Kim Chon Ryong, reportedly has expressed North Korea’s support for Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology.  How far cooperation in the nuclear domain goes or will go beyond this mutual deference is unclear.

Overall, it is evident that Iran and North Korea are forging closer and closer ties – a worrisome development.  And further sanctions would likely ensure that these ties continue to flourish.

Eric Cantor vs. Jim Schlesinger

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…