Main Menu

U.S. Defense Experts Warn Pentagon And Congressional leaders Of Defense Budget Imbalances

World Affairs – Defense Spending

Open Eyes Opinion {source: CSIS}

United States of America

New Building

Open Letter: A Defense Reform Consensus

In 2013, a bipartisan group of defense experts came together to warn Pentagon and Congressional leaders of the growing imbalances within the defense budget that threaten the health and viability of America’s military power. Nearly two years later, the same strong bipartisan consensus exists. Today, the urgency for change is even greater.

The Administration, with support from key members of Congress, has made some incremental and modest changes that begin to bend the cost curves in personnel, compensation, and infrastructure. In some cases, however, easy choices were made to avoid harder ones and difficult tradeoffs have been deferred. With rising threats around the globe and a military force diminishing in size, readiness, technological supremacy and some key capabilities, now is the time to make the major changes necessary to renew America’s military strength.

  • Too much of the defense budget is currently consumed by institutional inefficiencies, some of which are mandated by law. This is leaving a smaller share of the budget to pay for the manning, training, and equipping of our armed forces that make the US military without peer.

    Now is the time to begin the hard but necessary work to close excess bases, right-size the civilian workforce, and give future service members more value in a modern pay and benefits package. Given the election season, these questions will surely be deferred until 2017 or later if another year is lost.

    Meanwhile, our combat power will continue to suffer, morale will fall further, and America’s competitors will continue to become more capable of contesting US interests around the world.

    As the US military shrinks, it must reduce its inventory of physical infrastructure. Smaller budgets can no longer support paying for the operation of unnecessary facilities.

    Previous base closure rounds have produced significant savings for the American taxpayer. The Pentagon’s first four BRAC rounds are producing an annual recurring savings of around $8 billion, and even the latest round in 2005—which closed far fewer bases than preceding rounds—is producing nearly $4 billion in annual savings.

    Ten years after the last effort, Congress has yet to support another domestic base closure round—even though previous rounds were all approved under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Defense Department’s inventory of buildings remains at about 2.2 billion square feet with roughly 86 percent located in the United States.

    Estimates remain constant that the Pentagon retains over 20 percent excess capacity here in the US. Meanwhile, the military services have arguably drawn down too far in overseas basing. Members of Congress in both parties should partner with the Pentagon to identify the true scale of excess capacity and better match the Department’s vast network of facilities to its smaller, more forward-engaged force.

    The size and structure of the federal defense civilian workforce is another area in need of urgent examination and restructuring that policymakers in both branches have been reluctant to tackle. From 2001 to 2014, the active duty military shrank by nearly 3 percent. Yet over the same time frame the number of civilian defense employees grew by 10 percent to 756,000.

    This workforce rose another 3 percent in just the past year. While these professionals support essential missions of the Defense Department, their growth since 2001 has created a workforce that is now out of proportion to need. At the same time, the Department of Defense has grown a civilian contractor workforce of nearly the same size, an estimated 700,000.

    While DoD has made selective reductions in parts of the civilian workforce, it is unclear if these have been appropriately matched to the changing needs of a downsizing military and shifting strategy. This is a critical unanswered question for policymakers since defense civilians are directly employed by the government, consuming $76 billion of the defense budget in 2014.

    The Government Accountability Office, for instance, has consistently criticized the Pentagon for failing to collect the necessary data to optimize its workforce—including assessing the most efficient balance between contractors, civilians, and military personnel. Collecting this information is essential in order to bring the defense civilian and contractor workforces into balance with the size of our uniformed military.

    But the Department should not stop there. In order to right-size the defense workforce, DoD should undertake a systematic effort to de-layer headquarters organizations across the Department, reducing needless bureaucracy and optimizing spans of control to enable better performance at lower cost.

    Finally, it is time for a comprehensive modernization of the military compensation system.

    The nation’s approach to military compensation and benefits has changed little since the 1970s, even as the demographics of our force have shifted to a greater proportion of married, college-educated service members with dependents and even as new approaches in areas like health care have created the possibility of delivering better outcomes at lower cost.

    As the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission recently reaffirmed, America’s highly mobile youth have different expectations about compensation and attach different value to its various forms than did earlier generations.

    Better maximizing the value of compensation to beneficiaries was the philosophy of the commission and should remain the driving force behind reform. But cost should also be a consideration given that from fiscal year 1998 to FY 2014, the cost per active duty service member grew 76 percent, adjusting for inflation.

    In recent years, Pentagon leaders have proposed many incremental changes to military compensation to reduce the rate of growth, but Congress has yet to act in a holistic manner. Congress should, at a minimum, commit to bringing the commission’s thoughtful recommendations to a vote in both chambers this year. It should also examine and implement the best proposals for reforming the DoD health care system to deliver better outcomes for service members, retirees, and their families at less cost to the American taxpayer.

    Reforms in these three areas will not be easy, painless, or popular. But they are essential to maintaining a strong national defense over the long term.

    These responsible initiatives should be undertaken by Pentagon and Congressional leaders regardless of the level of defense spending. While these reforms are necessary, they are not in and of themselves sufficient to meet the fiscal and strategic challenges the military currently faces.

    Those of us who have joined together in support of these efforts may differ on many issues, but we are unified in our agreement on the need to pursue long-overdue defense and institutional reforms. Excess facilities, an oversized civilian workforce, and outdated military compensation and benefits models all jeopardize the combat power these investments are intended to support. Failure to pursue these changes could come at great cost, increasing the chance that our service men and women will be unprepared for future challenges. It is past time for bold action.

    Gordon Adams, Stimson Center
    David Adesnik, Foreign Policy Initiative
    David Barno, American University
    Michael Breen, Truman National Security Project
    Shawn Brimley, Center for a New American Security
    Nora Bensahel, American University
    Barry Blechman, Stimson Center
    Mark Cancian, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Phillip Carter, Center for a New American Security
    Derek Chollet, German Marshall Fund
    Bryan Clark, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Ryan Crotty, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Janine Davidson, Council on Foreign Relations
    Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute
    Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute
    Paul Eaton, National Security Network
    Eric Edelman, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Mieke Eoyang, Third Way
    Michèle Flournoy, Center for a New American Security
    Christopher Griffin, Foreign Policy Initiative
    Mark Gunzinger, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Todd Harrison, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Jerry Hendrix, Center for a New American Security
    Kathleen Hicks, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Tim Kane, Hoover Institution
    Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress
    Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Maren Leed, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Evan Montgomery, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Clark Murdock, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Michael O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution
    Paul Scharre, Center for a New American Security
    John Stillion, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Jim Thomas, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Jan van Tol, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
    Dov Zakheim, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Roger Zakheim, American Enterprise Institute


    Background Note: CSIS 

    For 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has developed practical solutions to the world’s greatest challenges. As we celebrate this milestone, CSIS scholars continue to provide strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decision makers chart a course toward a better world.

    CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.  The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look to the future and anticipate change.
    Since 1962, CSIS has been dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. After 50 years, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international policy institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global development and economic integration.

    Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn has chaired the CSIS Board of Trustees since 1999. John J. Hamre became the Center’s president and chief executive officer in April 2000. CSIS was founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke.

    Please Visit CSIS


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015

Comments are Closed