FOR THE rest of this election year, the United States military will endure a funding squeeze as politicians try to hold down federal spending. But rising demand for forces to operate against Daesh (also known as Islamic State or ISIS) in the Middle East and South Asia is putting pressure on the Pentagon, writes World Review Expert Dr. James Jay Carafano.
Once the November elections are resolved, persistent public concerns about global security and a growing consensus that the armed forces need new organization and new weapons could lead to an upsurge in defense acquisitions.
While the United States continues to spend more on defense than any other nation, the demands being placed on its armed forces and their aging equipment have contributed to perceptions of a security gap. A recent report from a Congressionally appointed bipartisan commission on the future of the Army cited “limited investments in modernization as a source of long-term concern, a concern that would surface even had the less-challenging security conditions in the current defense strategy held.”
Broad upgrades of land, ground and sea forces have not been undertaken since the 1980s, when the U.S. fielded a new generation of equipment to meet the Soviet threat.
With the end of the Cold War, America cut its conventional forces and slowed the pace of buying and deploying new systems. The U.S. Navy, for example, shrank from about 550 ships to less than 250. The average age of weapons systems is also increasing. The Air Force’s inventory, for instance, averages more than 26 years per platform – the highest age in the history of this service branch.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks the spending did shoot up for several years, but the bulk of the additional funds went to pay for the war effort and a temporary increase in ground forces, rather than for modernization. Modernization funding dropped by 28 percent in real terms from the 2010 to the 2015 fiscal years. The cutbacks involved not just purchases, but also research, development, testing and evaluation of new weapons.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 seems to offer some relief, including $1 billion specifically earmarked for additional procurement. In the end, however, it may not boost acquisitions. The Office of Management and Budget has interpreted the $610 billion figure agreed for fiscal 2017 as a cap on all defense spending. With military operations in the Middle East and South Asia still expanding, with a corresponding increase in overheads, the government will propose more funding for Overseas Contingency Operations and reduce the allocation requested for the base budget — leaving less cash to buy new equipment. As a result, the fiscal 2017 acquisition budget could wind up reduced by 2-4 percent from this year. Even “top priority” programs, such as the purchase of the F-35 fighter plane, could be trimmed.
But there are now signs that this trend is changing, and that the shift could accelerate after a new president is chosen. In large part, the turnaround is a response to global developments, which trump concerns over the need to cut defense spending in order to help rein in fiscal deficits.
Terrorism – in particular the high profile attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California – has raised concerns about national security. Americans are also deeply troubled about the Syrian civil war and violence in the Middle East, unsettled about Europe in the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the refugee crisis, and wary over tensions with China and North Korea.
Not surprisingly, this has created greater willingness among the public to invest in defense, and to use force if necessary to protect American interests.
For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.
Publication Date:
Thu, 2016-02-18 06:00
Attached Files:
Related Links: