Defending the nation necessarily costs a lot of money. That said, we can and should endeavor to make national defense more cost effective and efficient. The problem is where and how to do so. In part, this will involve standing up to what former President Dwight Eisenhower once called the military-industrial complex.
The Institute for Spending Reform has just released a new report which suggests many ways the U.S. can save on defense-related spending. The most promising area may be in spending less money on unneeded stuff and more energy on accountability in the procurement process.
While Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has made procurement efficiency a priority, he needs congressional support to push back against defense contractors who want to retain government spending without taking responsibility for cost overruns. President Trump should now pressure Republicans in Congress to take Mattis’s side as he tries to whip the contractors into shape.
Another positive recommendation comes in the ISR’s call for the Pentagon to reconsider its nuclear replacement program. While we do need new nuclear weapons platforms and weapons, the U.S. could probably reduce its nuclear stockpile by a few hundred warheads.
Some of the ISR’s proposals are less appealing.
For one, the group’s call to dramatically scale back procurement would make it hard to replace old equipment and make off-shelf purchases to adapt to urgent operational needs.
The ISR’s call to increase ship-deployment lengths and reduce the planned fleet size increases is also an error. In recent U.S. Navy mishaps in the Pacific, we’ve seen the consequence of overstretched and over-stressed crews.
Moreover, the U.S. Navy remains the irreplaceable component for the maintenance of the oceanic commons; the shield behind which free trade has helped increase global wealth, make goods cheaper for American families and led to increasing popular sympathy for democratic norms.
In equal measure, the ISR’s argument for cancelling the Air Force’s B-21 bomber program and buying older fighter jets instead of the newer F-35 is also a mistake. Facing rising high-capability air defense challenges from Russia and China in particular, the U.S. needs aircraft that can penetrate enemy air space with confidence. That means fully funding programs like the B-21 and buying the F-35 (even though that program has cost far too much).
Ultimately, however, the ISR deserves credit for their report. They’ve contributed to the debate by offering specific remedies rather than simplistic rhetoric.
NOTE: Jonathan Bydlak adds a clarification to the author: “This report is intended as a clearinghouse of available options, not a unified strategy. We don’t necessarily endorse every option and, in fact, some may even be slightly contradictory if pursued together. The vast majority of the options in the report have been suggested by budget watchdogs, CBO, GAO, members of Congress, the Administration, or Pentagon leadership. We hope lawmakers can find useful options and see all budgeting in terms of tradeoffs.”
