Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, astute and able as he is in tempering the more extreme elements within the Obama administration, may still be enabling while trying to slow the rot in our hull.
Yesterday, Gates, as the Wall Street Journal reports, “Shoots Across Navy’s Bow” in a budget speech. Gates, also, aimed fire at the Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicles.
Gates points are well made: both our Navy and Marine Corps must rely less upon traditional large ships and subs, and landing craft, respectively, to meet the capabilities and challenges from missiles and killer subs. Gates points out that the US Navy has more sea and air assets than the rest of the world combined, but is somewhat vulnerable to dangers from swarming speedboats, for example. The Navy and Marine Corps should, instead, gear more toward agility and effectiveness in countering and overwhelming the threats from or within smaller nations.
Gates is correct.
However, the premise is, while realistic, shortsighted. The premise is that in a time of tight budgets, our defense cannot afford the same, not to mention larger, levels of defense spending, especially when current and proposed arms are so expensive.
US defense spending, in sum or by comparison to the rest of the world, is larger than all others combined. Yet, it is also at the lowest point as a portion of GDP, excluding 1999-2000, since the end of the Cold War.
Meanwhile, it is other federal expenditures, mostly of the welfare and entitlement varieties, that has exploded.
Meanwhile, other nations, like Britain, cut their defense spending, while others, like China, greatly increase theirs.
There is obviously high need for other nations allied with the US, or of complementary interests, to increase their spending and coordination, and to stop free-riding upon the US. Still, there is no other nation than the US with reach and will to keep the sea lanes open and nations in the lee of expansionist powers, like China and Iran, from being swept aboard their crafts. And, other nations are more likely to follow the US lead in whether they increase or decrease their own contributions to global defense objectives.
Gates is on target that a failure to reform and modernize US arms priorities may result in future defeats as well as waste.
However, reform should not turn into a rout in which we abandon needed capabilities to meet larger adversaries and arms. With Obama at our helm, the big question is to what extent is Gates maneuvering or enabling.
