The point man in charge of requirements at the Pentagon, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Hoss Cartwright, just told the services to “wake up!” at a CSIS sponsored conference in Washington, DC. In the real world, not the fantasy bubble of never ending defense budget increases, there are such things as economic dislocation, fiscal deficits and resource constraints, he said.
“You are not going to have 300 to 500 ships. You are not going to have thousands of fighters.” At the same time, America must try and reverse its course of the last decade, which was bringing us to the point where we would have one ship on each coast and one plane on each coast, and focus on quantity to help reverse that stark reality: “We need quantity more than we need that high end exquisite capability. If we can’t figure out how to get to that we’re living in denial of the world we’re in and hoping for the world we want to have in front of us.”
He echoed a theme that we’re hearing more and more from top military leaders, particularly SecDef Robert Gates, in recent weeks: we must think in terms of partnering and building coalitions. Defense planners too often look at a military challenge and say the U.S. military must buy up weapons in sufficient number to meet that challenge (think the rise of China).
That way of thinking must change, said Cartwright. “The reality is we don’t fight alone, we don’t deter alone, we don’t assure alone, everything is done in partnership, everything is done in coalitions… we tend to want to build and buy and field everything ourselves.” That path is no longer affordable.
Cartwright has always struck me as one of the smarter strategic thinkers around. He gets the economic strength equals military strength equation that too many today fail to recognize. “You cannot build strategy in the absence of resources,” he said.
Much more coverage of the CSIS conference on international security at DOD Buzz.
– Greg Grant
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
"That way of thinking must change, said Cartwright. “The reality is we don’t fight alone, we don’t deter alone, we don’t assure alone, everything is done in partnership, everything is done in coalitions"
Really?
I see Congress just added $360 billion to 2011 defense budget to make sure ABL and MDS get more than what Gates wanted. Thousands of fighters? I'm not sure 130 certified Raptors are going to scare anyone, but then maybe our coalition friends can lend us their PAK FAs and Typhoons……
$360 million that is, big difference….sorry.
And when do the Obama-voting overpaid public sector unions have to do with less? Public sector unions are parasites destroying the country, just like they've destroyed Greece … but they are good Obama voters so no cuts for them. Nope, Obama keeps shoveling money to his voters.
The military must take big big cuts. The country is broke, and has huge deficits. We cannot afford national health care, or Obamacare, and a sizable military at the same time. We have tens of millions of illegal immigrants that have to be provided for, that takes money away from the military. Public sector unions require that expensive benefits be provided to union workers. That takes away potential military dollars. It is realistic that in the next 3-10 years military (to include guard and reserver) strength will have to be reduced by over a half, and maybe up to two thirds. Our President has said he will bring about change, and that is what he is doing. By the time his term ends in 2016 our military will be quite small compared to what it is now.
Bob, illegal immigrants tend to work their arses off, they don't feel entitled like union folks do. Actually illegal immigrants willing to work hard is the nightmare of unions.
true but they are still reaping benefits without paying their full share of taxes.
Yes, and they steal people's SSNs to earn that money and then turn around and claim 10 exemptions on their W4s so they pay practically nothing in taxes ever.
Many illegals do pay taxes and they do contribute to GDP. Unless the DOD can show how our allies are going to pick up our slack, it would be an unwise time for such cuts. It adds to perception of America in retreat. Waste yes, but I wouldn't count on much help in deterring the world's greatest security threats.
CBO is now distancing themselves from their health care assessment. Housing continues to be a drag. A better economic policy would improve our resources but one must wonder how the Democrats are actually using the economic crisis to implement their desired shrinkage of military power and use of force. Even before Obama became President, many suggested he would use the economy to justify his foreign policy and defense policies. We see that now, but Congress is having some problems with that.
You obviously don't live near the border, or you believe the media line about illegals. They suck up welfare, take advantage of free hospital services, free education, none of which they pay for in taxes. Also, a good percentage are out and out criminals that have no intention of working their arses off, but robbing, raping and murder.
I live in NYC and I assure you illegals work extremely hard. Though I don't employ illegals several I know pay taxes, There are lots of studies and illegals do contribute substantially. Thatr does not contradict the problems you talk about. Are situations worse in immediate border areas? Hell yes, but your characterization of 13 million people is not accurate. As the trade union gets thinner, no wonder the union in NYC supported McCain's attempt at immigration reform. I am not for open borders and illegals have hurt my business, but construction and service business would be in deep crap were we to wave a wand and make them disappear. To blame illegals for the the decline of our military does not make much sense.
Do you mean public sector employees like INS, Customs, the Federal Prison System? You are awful vague about what you mean by public employees. How about VA health care workers or the FBI, CIA, etc.? Those are all public sector employees.
Why does the military have to pay, why not cut spending where most of the waste is? How about social expendatures/healthcare/pork, are you willing to risk the security of our nation for a nanny state that will be broke and cannot defend itself? How about all of the soldiers that have chosen the military as a profession, what, you are going to say tough, sorry, go find another job while we take care of the freeloaders or the GOV'ts dole? You have no clue what it takes to maintain a free society. Is there waste in the military, yes, but not anywhere near the levels in other government agencies. What is the most honorable profession, a soldier/airman/marine or coastguardsman, and you want to trade that for dependec on someone else. Get real. I am sick of the military taking the brunt. Shrink the Government, put staes in charge of their destiny and defend this great nation! Lets do the hard right vs the easy wrong. Prefessional soldiers should not pay for the laziness of politicians or the gullibility of the populace.
Military spending IS pork.
I say we end government healthcare. Abolish the VA!
Really? Are you serious? I will admit certain projects are not necessary and conducted to protect congressional seats, but We always need to take care of our veterans. Thre are 3 groups of people we need to take care of, the elderly, the children, and the veterans. Anyone else needs to get up and take care of themselves.
No, of course I'm not serious about cutting the VA.
I am serious about military spending being pork. From domestic bases to procurement, congressional districts seem to matter more than military usefulness.
I don't think in reality Gates has mentioned much in the way of cuts. He has said budgets will not continue to grow. He has said he wants to chop $15 a year from the bloated command structure but that the savings would be rolled into operations and procurement. I think both Cartwright and Gates have pointed out we can't buy these wildly expensive systems anymore, particularly when the threat they are supposedly going to address is dubious at best.
It all goes back to a great many never ending circular arguments over systems. Do we really need large numbers of F22s and F35s? Certainly not for the air sovereignty mission in North America. The latest block F16s and the F15SEs would do more than fantastic at maintaining that mission.
Do we need carrier based F35s when the carriers are already being squeezed by strike range due to access denial efforts of potential adversaries. To say nothing of the potential for a X47ish platform providing vastly greater strike range and utility.
Is there a critical need for $16 million EFVs purchased in the quantity proposed when the scenario for their use hasn't been executed in 60+ years? There is a reason we haven't stormed a fortified beach in sixty years, and it's the same reason we don't buy horses and sabers in quantity as military hardware anymore.
The trouble with the "we don't need to do everything ourselves, we need to build coalitions" is that all the possible partners have been operating on the "we don't need <insert big capability here>, the Yanks will provide it for us". Sooner or later, this sort of thinking will lead to a disaster for all concerned :-(
Gen. Cartwright for SecDef!!
Gates started something good, but I don't think he has the vision (or maybe the cujones) to push it as far as it needs to go. Cartwright looks like he does.
Political statement dutifully made. How 'corporate'. Goldwater-Nichols' aims fulfilled.
We can't rely on our allies. We can most certainly afford a 300 ship Navy and thousands of combat aircraft, and we should have both of those. I hope some people have the backbone to put national defense before social programs!
We already had a smaller budget in the Clinton years, we don't need that again!
That point is not to buy, or try to buy, billion dollar wonder weapons of the future; where we can only afford to buy a few, and never on time or budget. Even if there was a real justification, and there is not, we need cheaper, and more relevant tools, that we can buy in large numbers to be useful and redundant. Our cost curve is unsustainable, and it must change.
The best thing we can do to protect our future is to be the first to speed of light weapons , space technology and the very things are adversaries cannot get there hands on like a global navy, total air superiority. Besides a well paid soldiers and smart strategies, these things are what off-sets our lack of allies with balls, our smaller numbers and a future with dangerous nutcases….
What the banking sector stole, we could have a serious down payment on all of the above which is why such excessive greed, corruption and stupidity is brutally unpatriotic.
forgive the typos…..thanks.
Maybe what the Air Force aught to do is look into a Two Mission Squadrons, Those loaded with the Expensive F-22 and F-35 Mega-billion front line Offensive dual capable air craft…and then the Stay at home Cheaper long range patrol defend the home turf Air craft like a revamped A-4 or A-8 Crusader…of course with a bit of newer technology added in the Avionics and Engine Department…for longer cruising capability and instantanious Speed when needed. Oh, and slap on some of that Radar deflective paint on it too while your at it.
So, for Overseas Frontline Combat (multimission)..the Expensive F-22, F-35s but in smaller numbers…and then for Home Security, longer legged, Grunts like a reinvented A-4/ A-8 that just needs to pop up and investigate or quickly shoot-down…not a Multi-tasking Offensive weapon but Defensive weapon..and way much Cheaper and more of them in the skys.
I mean really, think whose aircraft are really capable of invading US airspace?
There's no way that you could use an A-4 for domestic air defense, it's an attack plane whose only air to air capability are a pair of 20mm cannons. While it's a nimble aircraft it's not a fighter, never was designed to be a fighter, and aside from that they're just plain ancient and a sitting duck for any 4th gen fighter. As for the A-8 Crusader, there's no such bird; there's an F-8 Crusader and its cousin the A-7 Corsair II but no A-8. Regardless, neither and F-8 or A-7 would work since both are ancient and outdated and in the case of the A-7, not even a fighter.
then stop giving our money overseas. No country overseas deserves our help!!!
They have their own taxes and budgets. give,give,give and then we dont have money back home here. cops,military,firfighters,educators,homeless, and more need OUR TAX dollars to stay here. make a smaller military and do less with what you get?? what a-hole thought of that idea?? Maybe you should work for nothing so we can use it here!!!
We give $25 billion in foreign aid. The defense budget is almost $700 billion.
Check your numbers next time.
The issue of smaller defense budgets ALWAYS gets addressed and implemented under Democratic administrations. Look at the Clinton era military draw down. The hollow military under Jimmy Carter and the welfare increases at that time. This is nothing new, only the names have changed. The new way of thinking is quantity over capability, similar to the way of thinking during WWII with the M4 Sherman tanks and P-40 fighter. If you have enough quantity, it takes on a quality all of it's own. The F-16 seems to have proven that it is a viable approach. The F-35 is not a cheap weapons system and it will have to be supplemented with something else (UCAV's)? No matter what else happens, smaller defense budgets are a reality for the foreseeable future.
If this is the "reality for the foreseeable future" than we really need some new leadership.
By the time I got done entering all of my information, I forgot what I wanted to talk about. I retired from my beloved Air Force in 1979 after a 20 year career, only because I couldn't trust my wife at the time, to behave if I went over seas again. Anyway, as I recall we did seem to waste and spend at a good clip, really because we didn't understand the realities of fiscal responsibility. Like a lot of us from back then, I do now. It probably is time to cinch up a bit.
Part of the waste probably also came from the whole worry about losing budget money if they didn't spend it all at the end of the fiscal year. Now if they allowed the military to keep any surplus budge they might have and apply it to the next fiscal year on top of their budget or even at the least authorizing a budget that's lower by the surplus amount and using the surplus to make up the difference I think you'd have less waste in the military.
This is written in jesting good humor, one retiree to another. I only mention it because an outsider might think it merely snarky.
You retired when I was a freshly hatched SSgt, but I think you might want to check the ol' memory stick. When you retired, Carter wasn't funding defense enough to buy spare parts: the origins of the term 'Hollow Force'. Reagan's so-called defense 'buildup' was more of a 'fill in the blanks' and 'fix the broke' . If you had stuck around ten more years in uniform after Reagan's resotration of the force and after facing down the Rooskies for another decade, I'm pretty sure the value of bringing an end to the Cold War in our lifetime would have made you feel better about spending all that money.
It does for me.
The biggest mistake by the Bush Administration was accepting Donald Rumsfeld's resignation and appoiting Robert Gates as his replacement as the man has no heart and wants to destroy the US military as Gates' title should be Secretary of No as since Obama taken office, Gates has push for the cancellation of just about every Defense program and it's work; as in a matter of 2-3 years, it'll be highly unlikely that the US will be able to fight a war or be able to adequately defend ourselves as Gates and Obama has been able to do in 18 months what the Russians weren't able to do for 50 years.
Rumsfeld was a terrible SecDef. He mismanaged the Iraq War and was more interested in enriching defense contractors than actually protecting the US.
We can't afford the military we need, but we can afford never-ending entitlement programs and countless pork barrel spending projects.
Let's fund the National Endowment for the Arts but not the Pentagon.
Thanks, Obama. Good to see your priorities are in order.
NEA: less than $140 million
Defense: about $600 billion, with
Yep, the defense budget is more than 4,000x the NEA budget.
The NEA budget is less than the cost of one F-22.
Stop whining.
I believe the NEA reference is was what is commonly known an an 'illustrative example'. (at least that's the way I took it)
I'll add another: 'Obamacare'. Do the math on that.. then do the cost-benefit analysis and DO get back to us.
What we can afford:
- Health care entitlements
-Social Security
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-The NEA
-Foreign aid
-Buildings named after Congressmen
-Expensive liquor for State.
-Airports named after Congressmen
-Housing entitlements
-Unemployment welfare
What we can't afford:
-Fighters for the military
-Ships for the military
Yesiree, Washington sure has its priorities straight.