Budget tight, U.S. unveils slimmer military
President Barack Obama discusses defense strategic guidance, Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at the Pentagon. / AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama insists the United States will maintain what he calls the best-equipped military in history despite deep and looming defense budget cuts.
In a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room, Obama has offered the outlines of an overhauled defense strategy. It is designed to contend with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts and refocus the United States' national security priorities after a decade dominated by the post.-Sept. 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The plan was put in place "because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around," Mr. Obama said. "Moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. We can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past, after World War II, after Vietnam, when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. As commander in chief, I will not let that happen again, not on my watch."
Obama says the military will be leaner but promises the world that the U.S. will maintain its "military superiority" with fighting forces ready for any threat.
The president says the strategy review centered on the military the country needs after the "long wars of the last decade are over."
The speech at the Pentagon was part of Mr. Obama's effort to put his personal stamp on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy.
Mr. Obama was announcing results of a strategy review that he ordered last spring. The aim was twofold: Streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.
Mr. Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.
In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Mr. Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Mr. Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.
Mr. Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivot point in his stewardship of defense policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and their drag on resources.
The revamped strategy is not expected to radically alter defense priorities. It may set the stage, however, for expected cutbacks in Europe and big weapons programs.
It also will move the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars — like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea — at the same time. This takes into account a bigger focus on immediate threats like cyber warfare and terrorism.
The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Mr. Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Wednesday that Mr. Obama was closely involved in the defense strategy review, meeting six times since September with top defense officials, including Panetta and Dempsey. Vietor said the review established priorities to ensure that defense spending cuts are "surgical."
As for Mr. Obama's decision to make a personal appearance at the Pentagon, Vietor said, "It's a sign of how personally engaged he is in this process and the level of importance he puts in shaping our priorities for the next decade."
Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.
The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Mr. Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.
A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.
On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.
"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al Qaeda is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.
"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.
The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.
China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.
Looming large over the defense budget debate is the prospect of reducing spending on nuclear weapons.
Thomas Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, believes the U.S. nuclear program can cut $45 billion over the coming decade without weakening the force. He estimates that reducing the U.S. strategic nuclear submarine force from 12 subs to eight could save $27 billion over 10 years. A further $18 billion could be saved by delaying the building of a new fleet of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft, he says.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
Photos: Underground shots of NYC's Second Ave. subway project New York City's Second Ave. subway was first conceived almost a century ago and when it is completed, it will extend all the way down the eastern side of Manhattan with 16 new stations. CBS News' Don Dahler reports on one of the most challenging public works projects in the country.
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Tornado briefly touches down on Denver airport runways
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"
- FAA approval sought for 650-foot-tall Vegas thrill ride
Yawn still can't answer the question why am I not surprised, what ever.
It seems only YOU doesn't know the bill was reintroduced in 2007 (I.E. S. 1100, The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007) Chris Dodd big Fannie Freddie cash recipient was chairman of the finance committee in 2007 LMAO never made it out of committee.
Ahhh, I see how it works now.....
Republicans in charge 2005 and the bill never makes it out of committee: democrats fault.
Democrats in charge 2007 and the bill never makes it out of committee: democrats fault.
Gotcha.
I don't want Obama setting the agenda for the next decade of ANYTHING.....let alone something as important as national defense. He doesn't understand defense. With him as the lynchpin of the next 10 years, look for other countries to take alot of shots at our military men & women as they know that he's a softie and an apologist. Please make Obama go away in 2012.
he doesn't understand defense?!?!?!
He looks like Sun Tsu or Rommel when compared to the republicans!!!!
Good lord you mindless people and your projecting!!!!!!
What's your point I simply asked for a bill any bill that democrats sponcered that would had it passed stopped (or even limited) the 2008 collapse?
And what do you give me back just gibberish and side srteps to the question.
What that tells me with all your bluster about how democrats are so much better then reublicans is just a bunch of hot air.
You're such an ignorant tool. You have NO IDEA of how your government works.
How are the democrats supposed to call a committee into session and have them launch an investigation or create legislation in 2002, when the republicans were IN CHARGE, and only THEY could call the committees into session and launch congressional investigations or take legislation into consideration?
I cannot find a bit of legislation that republicans took into committee to take into consideration, because they didn't take any into consideration.
I like how you proclaim "I win, I win" while America is devastated by the republicans policies that are STILL harming this country.
Congratulations on "your master's victory" over those that are seeking the "American dream" but will never realize it.
Chris Dodd killed it and btw john McCain was a cosponsor so I don't know where you get your information from but it's flawed.
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/john-mccain-2006-warning-on-current-housing-crisis/
It was stalled in 2005, reintroduced in 2007 and stalled again. Chris Dodd was a senior ranking member and now the chair of the Committee, and the largest recipient of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac donations.
Dodd said to Wolf Blitzer, "To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate." That was on July 13, 2008!
If you look at the Congressional record of bills the only bills democrats were introducing were bill meant to make it easier for those who couldn't afford them to get loans.
John McCain put his name on as a co-sponsor in September 2008 when he was running for president. He came out 2 days later and said, "I co-sponsored legislation that would have...."
Chuck Hagel said that when it died in committee, there was only ONE co-sponsor - Dole. He didn't know when McCain and Sununu put their names on it.
McCain admitted that he did it in September 2008, after he lost the election in November. That's why "your proof" has a date of 9/20/2008 on it.
And you can't "reintroduce legislation" from one session of congress into the next. Once the session of congress ends, ALL unfinished legislation that's isn't finished, dies unfinished inside of it. And Chuck Hagel was already out of congress in 2007. You're just making this stuff up as you go now.
And once again, I'm calling you on your BS. What "bills were the democrats introducing, that were bills meant to make it easier for those who couldn't afford them to get loans"?
Likewise, Bin Laden is dead and the US is no doubt fighting many smaller, less expensive skirmishes around the globe. Moreover, the US simply cannot afford free wheeling trillion dollar wars.
Anybody who has studied history knows a nation cannot fight wars without raising taxes to pay for them. To do otherwise is a recipe for collapse of a nation (or empire).
Many Tea Party candidates have also urgently expressed budget cuts to defense as well.
Bottom line: We know we have to cut costs in all areas of our government. Spending freely and protecting defense special interests is not in the national interest.
I would also argue that the US military has been abused by BIG OIL. Our sons and daughters have faught too many wars over oil, which is not a noble thing to do. There are better, more noble wars to fight. Trudging through one oil country after another is not only stupid, it has brought the US isolation from its long time allies.
I feel Americans now realize these facts and are ready for a change in national direction and a shift in our foreign policy. Our long-time allies are waiting and welcoming for this shift in policy. To do otherwise will lead the US to renewed isolation.
Long story short: We cannot keep playing by foolish, outdated policies that bring physical and financial harm to our nation. Too many troops have died and our nation is deeply in debt.
You mean Democrats only existed on this planet after 2007??? Or that they didn't have power to introduce bills on their own???
You're painfully unaware of how the whole "legislation process" occurs.
All legislation that is created must go to "committee" before it becomes eligible for a vote. just like Hagel's bill that you're talking about - it died "in committee", and the rest of the senate never even got to see it, much less act / vote on it.