President Calls for Roles and Missions Debate

I found a transcript of the President's speech as prepared for delivery at the Weekly Standard. These speeches sometimes get adjusted before or during presentation, but as prepared these were the specific comments President Obama made regarding cutting defense spending.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

To answer those who asked me the question today..., yes, some the Obama folks read the blog, because they enjoy telling me how wrong I am all the time with my fiscally conservative views. I'd point out they did that before the most Progressive President in American history joined the crusade in Washington DC towards spending cuts.

I think President Obama has done something remarkably brilliant politically in proposing the defense cuts, because as was previously discussed, the President used the same vernacular and proposed the same process in determination of cuts that existing conservative and libertarian defense thinkers have made in their arguments framing defense cuts in the past.

It is unclear how the internal review process will take place, but it is likely the review will be conducted as required in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 2 USC Sec. 118b (as amended by FY08 NDAA) as part of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review following the FY2012 budget already submitted. The details of the QRM are outlined below:

(a) Review Required.— The Secretary of Defense shall every four years conduct a comprehensive assessment (to be known as the “quadrennial roles and missions review”) of the roles and missions of the armed forces and the core competencies and capabilities of the Department of Defense to perform and support such roles and missions.

(b) Independent Military Assessment of Roles and Missions.—

1. In each year in which the Secretary of Defense is required to conduct a comprehensive assessment pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall prepare and submit to the Secretary the Chairman’s assessment of the roles and missions of the armed forces and the assignment of functions to the armed forces, together with any recommendations for changes in assignment that the Chairman considers necessary to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces.
2. The Chairman’s assessment shall be conducted so as to—

(A) organize the significant missions of the armed forces into core mission areas that cover broad areas of military activity;
(B) ensure that core mission areas are defined and functions are assigned so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort among the armed forces; and
(C) provide the Chairman’s recommendations with regard to issues to be addressed by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c).

(c) Identification of Core Mission Areas and Core Competencies and Capabilities.— Upon receipt of the Chairman’s assessment, and after giving appropriate consideration to the Chairman’s recommendations, the Secretary of Defense shall identify—

1. the core mission areas of the armed forces;
2. the core competencies and capabilities that are associated with the performance or support of a core mission area identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
3. the elements of the Department of Defense (including any other office, agency, activity, or command described in section 111 (b) of this title) that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities required to effectively perform the core missions identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
4. any gaps in the ability of the elements (or other office, agency activity, or command) of the Department of Defense to provide core competencies and capabilities required to effectively perform the core missions identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
5. any unnecessary duplication of core competencies and capabilities between defense components; and
6. a plan for addressing any gaps or unnecessary duplication identified pursuant to paragraph (4) or paragraph (5).

(d) Report.— The Secretary shall submit a report on the quadrennial roles and missions review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report shall be submitted in the year following the year in which the review is conducted, but not later than the date on which the President submits the budget for the next fiscal year to Congress under section 1105 (a) of title 31.

You can find the last Quadrennial roles and missions review from January 2009 here (PDF).

Initially, there is likely to be some debate on how big a defense budget cut $400 billion over ten years really is. It is really about how you look at it. The FY2011 total defense budget that includes defense spending in the Dept of Energy and supplemental spending for the wars goes for about $700 billion. Some of that spending though, like war operations, simply won't be cut because the President isn't going to cut the budget money allocated towards conducting the 3 wars, for example. Another point of view might be the base defense budget topline number, which is about $533 billion in FY2011. In my opinion, what the Obama administration has essentially suggested is a top line total defense cut excluding certain war operations that is basically 15% of the defense budget, give or take ~2% either way depending upon what you believe the real annual spending number is for the defense budget over the next decade.

I personally believe ~15% (or $400 billion) is the right target, because it is a politically achievable number.

What To Watch For

If the process for conducting "a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world" is in fact going to be the QRM, then the QRM just beginning development right now is likely to be more important than the QDR released last year - and perhaps even invalidate the QDR released last year.

The most important question is: with Secretary Gates set to retire very soon, will he conduct the QRM or is it important that the administration names a Secretary of Defense replacement sooner and have that person conduct the QRM? The Politico reported today only three names remain in contention for the Secretary of Defense position: Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy.

Whoever gets picked will inherit the defense cuts debate, and that debate is going to be the legacy of the next Secretary of Defense no matter who it is. The most important early decision of the QRM is going to be whether the defense budget will continue to be divided equally or be changed towards unequal distribution of funding among the services. I believe the new Secretary of Defense must make and own that decision in order to be effective in this debate, which means I believe the announcement for who is the new Secretary of Defense will be coming very soon.

I also fully expect that the unequal distribution of the defense budget is going to happen, because if the budget is divided equally - the military industrial establishment will have reason to align in unity against the President for attacking the defense budget. If the QRM recommends unequal distribution of funds between the services, the military services themselves will then forced to compete against each other and articulate a national defense argument in the context of national strategy that has very little politically to do with the administration.

In other words, unequal distribution of the defense budget favors both national strategy and the President politically. The down side to unequal distribution is that it might divide Congress, which is actually an upside for the administration with political control of the Senate and House already divided anyway. In that context, it is really hard to see any downside for the Obama administration pushing towards an unequal distribution of the defense budget between the services, which is why it will almost certainly happen and make the upcoming defense cuts debate a lot more than just another DoD budget cut rock drill.

I admit to being impressed. President Obama is set to cut the DoD budget while also kick starting the much needed strategic debate in national security that many have been calling for since 9/11. Sharpen your arguments folks, because over the next year the most influential defense debate since the cold war will be taking place, and the military service that loses the debate will be completely different than they are today.