WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II
buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new
spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget
to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the
terror attacks of 2001.
The
proposal, described by several Pentagon officials on the condition of
anonymity in advance of its release on Monday, takes into account the
fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a
president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A
result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any
adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
The
officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the
armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale
military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say,
and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say
that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
“You
have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a
large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a
senior Pentagon official said.
Outlines
of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional
approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its
release the budget is certain to come under political attack.
For
example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to
retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and
the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time
military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to
reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as
well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those
port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy
shipbuilding.
Even
so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would
have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr.
Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure
that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with
the best weaponry.
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare.
And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military
presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at
least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at
11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s
national security directives: to defend American territory and the
nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win
decisively if again ordered to war.
“We’re
still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said.
“But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It
will be trained.”
Mr.
Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces —
active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The
Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in
Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops
from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army
would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That
would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and
especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a
military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe
and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has
been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while
holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient
forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
6
million
Downsizing Defense
Cuts proposed by the Obama administration would result in the smallest Army since just before the World War II buildup.
5
Active duty military personnel, U.S. Army
4
1945, World War II
6.0 million
3
1952, Korean War
1.6 million
1968, Vietnam War
1.6 million
2
Proposed for the future
440,000-450,000
2011
566,000
1
’40
’50
’60
’70
’80
’90
’00
’10
The
Guard and Reserves, which proved capable in their wartime deployments
although costly to train to meet the standards of their full-time
counterparts, would face smaller reductions. But the Guard would see its
arsenal reshaped.
The
Guard’s Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the
active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the
Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for
the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black
Hawk — a workhorse transport helicopter — to use in domestic disaster
relief.
The
cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr.
Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of
about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions
kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even
more significant cuts would be required in later years.
The
budget to be presented Monday will be the first sweeping initiative
that bears Mr. Hagel’s full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in
office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on
initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget
provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The
proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like
veterans’ organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel
costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some
members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their
districts.
Mr.
Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue
of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year
salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military
personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in
pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.
The
fiscal 2015 budget will also call for slowing the growth of tax-free
housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4
billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would
most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive
for soldiers.
The
budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and
some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of
active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel’s proposals do not include any changes
to retirement benefits for those currently serving.
Under
Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack
aircraft would be eliminated. The aircraft was designed to destroy
Soviet tanks in case of an invasion of Western Europe, and the
capabilities are deemed less relevant today. The budget plan does
sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane, which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.
In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.
The
Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack
submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced
operating status during modernization.
Although
consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will
keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought
in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be
terminated in future years under tighter budgets.
No comments:
Post a Comment