By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 13, 2012 – Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta cautioned Congress today against dismantling the
strategic framework that supports the 2013 defense budget request.
Testifying along with Army Gen. Martin
E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the Senate
Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, the secretary said some
changes to the request could undermine the careful balance department leaders
built into military spending projections.
“Some of the [congressional] committees
have … made changes with regard to our recommendations that we're concerned
about,” Panetta said.
He listed three areas DOD leaders have
targeted for cuts, and which some members of Congress have challenged during
defense budget consideration.
“Some of the bills seek to reverse the
decisions to eliminate aging and lower-priority ships and aircraft,” the
secretary noted. “My concern is that if these decisions are totally reversed,
then I've got to find money somewhere … to maintain this old stuff.”
Keeping outdated equipment in service
would rob needed funds from other areas, he said. That, he added, would lead to
what he has long called a “hollow force” – a military that is not trained,
manned or equipped to meet current and future threats.
“We've got to be able to retire what is
aged and what we can achieve some savings on,” Panetta said.
Some in Congress have also objected to
“the measured and gradual reductions in end strength that we've proposed for
the Army and the Marine Corps,” he added. Panetta noted that under current
plans, DOD will reduce the active Army from roughly 560,000 to 490,000, while
the Marine Corps will downsize from 202,000 to 182,000 over five years.
“Again, if I have a large force and I
don't have the money to maintain that large force, I'm going to end up
hollowing it out, because I can't provide the training [and] I can't provide
the equipment,” the secretary said. “So that's why, if we're going to reduce
the force, then I've got to be able to do it in a responsible way.”
The third spending area he discussed
involves military compensation and health care. The budget request includes
some additional fees for retiree health care, and limits active-duty pay raises
after 2013. Panetta and Dempsey both emphasized that the department does not
plan to cut pay, but that compensation cost growth must be controlled to meet
budget constraints.
“If I suddenly wind up with no
reductions in that area, I've got to reach someplace to find the money to
maintain those programs, ... every low-priority program or overhead cost that
is retained will have to be offset by cuts in higher-priority investments in
order to comply with the Budget Control Act,” he said.
Panetta noted that act, which mandated
the defense spending cuts reflected in the fiscal 2013 request, also holds a
more dire threat to military spending: sequestration. That provision will
trigger another $500 billion across-the-board cut in defense spending over the
next decade if Congress doesn’t identify an equivalent level of spending cuts
by January.
“Obviously, this is a great concern,” he
said, calling sequestration a “meat-ax approach.”
“It would guarantee that we hollow out
our force and inflict severe damage on our national defense,” the secretary
asserted.
Dempsey also spoke about the damage
changes to defense spending plans could cause.
The strategy-based budget request, the
chairman said, “ensures we retain our conventional overmatch while divesting
capabilities not required in the active force -- or at all.”
The spending plan reflects choices that
maintain a needed balance among force structure, modernization, readiness, pay
and benefits, he added.
“Different choices will produce a
different balance,” the chairman cautioned. “So before giving us weapons we
don't need or giving up on reforms that we do need, I'd only ask you to make
sure it's the right choice, not for our armed forces but for our nation.
“Sequestration is absolutely certain to
upend this balance,” he continued. “It would lead to further end-strength
reductions, the potential cancellation of major weapons systems and the
disruption of global operations.”
Dempsey said slashing another
half-trillion dollars from defense funding over the next 10 years under
sequestration would transform U.S. forces “from being unquestionably powerful
everywhere to being less visible globally and presenting less of an overmatch
to our adversaries. That transformation would, in turn, change the nation’s
deterrent stance and potentially increase the likelihood of conflict, the
chairman said.
The general noted that because the law
allows defense leaders to cut spending in only certain areas, only three broad
areas would be available to service chiefs faced with sequestration: training,
maintenance and modernization.
“That's it. There's no magic in the
budget at that point,” Dempsey said. “And those three accounts will be
subjected to all of the cuts mandated by sequestration.”
Panetta appealed to the senators to take
action to avert a “potential disaster” by preserving the strategy-based defense
spending plan submitted in February.
“I know the members of this committee
are committed to working together to stop sequester, and I want you to know
that we are prepared to work with you to try to do what is necessary to avoid
that crisis,” he said.