by Kingston Reif Just when you thought the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee (HASC) couldn’t possibly go any crazier on nuclear weapons and missile defense, it doubled down on its fanaticism during last week’s mark up of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The result is a bill that if passed into law […]
Senate Budget Signals Commitment to Ending War in Afghanistan Promptly
A little-noticed provision in the Senate budget resolution is an interesting example of setting political priorities through budgeting.
Due to the protracted showdown over sequestration and the federal budget, this year the House and Senate budget committees drafted budget resolutions before the White House did (usually the President’s budget comes first). These congressional budgets can be an important reflection of congressional priorities and sentiment – particularly this year, when there was no presidential budget from which to take cues.
For Fiscal Year 2014, the Senate’s budget provides $50 billion for the war in Afghanistan, through an account known as ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’ or OCO (which is separate from the base budget, since war is treated as a special contingency rather than a standard expenditure).
Several weeks later, the Obama administration’s budget requested a much larger sum for FY 2014, asking for $88.5 billion as a placeholder until it settles on its withdrawal plans.
For 2015, the Senate halves the 2014 amount to $25 billion. After that, the Senate budget provides no war funding at all.. The budget resolution does clarify that reserve funding may be provided after 2015 as needed, but it seems that the preference is for any post-2015 war funding to come out of the base budget.
This is a telling provision, signaling the Senate’s rejection of the “endless war” that has become an American norm over the past decade. The fact that a special ‘contingency’ account for war has become a standard part of the defense budget shows that the federal budget takes war for granted – just like, unfortunately, much of the American public. Now, however, the Senate is using its budgetary priorities to indicate a welcome shift in political priorities.
For its part, the Republican-led House budget provided $90 billion in OCO funding for FY 2014 and $35 billion annually through FY 2023. The $35 billion is likely a placeholder, but it does suggest that the House is willing to continue to provide large sums for war funding for the foreseeable future.
It’s clear that the move to zero out OCO funding after 2015 reflects the Senate’s desire to end the war in Afghanistan, and its frustration with the lack of clear strategic objectives for our mission, as well as with the way that the war has been fought largely on ‘autopilot.’ Last year, the Senate voted 62-33 to accelerate the withdrawal from Afghanistan, with 13 Republicans voting aye, showing that it had the political will to support an end to the war. Since funding affects policy just as policy affects funding, the Senate’s latest action on the budget may show that there is now a will and a way to finally bring our involvement in Afghanistan to a close.
Let’s hope the White House is listening.
Initial Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Analysis
The President’s fiscal year 2014 defense request contains a “placeholder” for war funding, but in fact, the entire budget request itself should be considered a placeholder given its timing and disregard for current law requiring reductions as part of the budget sequester. To meet sequestration requirements, the President would have to propose an additional $52 billion in savings for fiscal year 2014.
The Obama administration has requested a base budget of $526.6 billion for fiscal year 2014. This represents a mere $900 million decrease, or just under two tenths of a percentage point from the FY13 base budget approved by Congress prior to sequestration.
Additionally, the administration has requested $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), to continue to fight the war in Afghanistan. However, the administration has noted that the number is only a placeholder pending a determination of troop levels, after which a final war request will be submitted.
These numbers do not include other forms of defense spending. In addition to an initial $615.1 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and the war in Afghanistan, the Administration has requested approximately $18 billion for nuclear weapons activities at Department of Energy and $7.4 billion for additional non-Pentagon defense related activities.
This brings total Pentagon defense related spending to approximately $640.5 billion, a nominal increase of $1.4 billion above the FY13 enacted level.
While the budget does contain some small reductions, the overall number presents little of the extreme fiscal austerity that Pentagon officials have warned about. Additionally, this approach would seem to be in stark contrast to a recent speech given by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the National Defense University in which the new secretary proposed changes to adapt the Pentagon both to more constrained resources, and to a 21st century threat landscape.
In his first major policy address, Secretary Hagel called for reshaping Pentagon strategy and budgets to meet future challenges. Hagel made clear his belief that by taking a closer look at the way our military is run, we can develop a stronger, safer strategy for the future. “I want to focus on challenges, choices and opportunities,” said Hagel, “the challenges posed by a changing strategic landscape and new budget constraints; the choices we have in responding to these challenges, and the opportunities that exist to fundamentally reshape the defense enterprise to better reflect 21st century realities.”
This discrepancy between Hagel’s stated strategy and the President’s budget proposal highlights the Pentagon’s continued inability to match resources to strategy. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come to an end and an inevitable draw down begins to take hold, this lack of planning will leave the Pentagon unprepared for the highest priority threats.
The changing nature of the current threat environment, in which unmanned drones and cyber attacks take precedence over nuclear weapons and heavy conventional weapons, will demand that the military create an agile and adaptable force that is better suited to 21st century threats.
Hagel said it himself, “Our military must continue to adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different than those that shaped our defense institutions during the Cold War.” It is time to begin to accept the realities of today so that the Pentagon can begin to move toward the future.
President’s Defense Budget is a Starting Point, Not the End
“Despite a bipartisan coalition in Congress to reshape Pentagon spending, the political will to make difficult decisions about specific Defense Department programs is low,” said Heeley.
Secretary Hagel Takes on Pentagon’s Top Challenge: Reshaping Itself
“For too long Cold War ideology, special interests and a ‘this-is-the-way-we-do-things’ mentality has controlled the strategy and checkbook of the Pentagon,” said Laicie Heeley, senior policy analyst at The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “U.S. national security needs to be based on a sound strategy that meets 21st century security threats, including the threat posed by our ballooning debt.”
