Pentagon warns on big defense cuts

Related Topics

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates walks out of the Pentagon for an honor cordon ceremony in Washington, December 3, 2010. REUTERS/Hyungwon Kang

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates walks out of the Pentagon for an honor cordon ceremony in Washington, December 3, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Hyungwon Kang

WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:05pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may have to scrap some military missions and trim troop levels if President Barack Obama sticks with his goal of saving $400 billion on security spending over a 10-year period, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

Arms makers' shares sold off after Obama made a speech on the budget deficit in which he called, in effect, for holding growth in the Pentagon's core budget, excluding war costs, below inflation through 2023, starting in fiscal 2013.

The squeeze on the Pentagon's budget, which has roughly doubled since 2001, is part of a larger drive to cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over the 10-year period.

Standard & Poor's aerospace and defense index declined 0.9 percent on Wednesday, underperforming the S & P 500 index, which closed up .02 percent. Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, dropped 2.6 percent to close at $80.37 on the New York Stock Exchange.

"It's not just a math exercise which is 'cut $400 billion'," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "It's 'let's review our roles and our missions and see what we can forgo, or pare down, in this age of fiscal constraint, where we are all collectively trying to work with the deficit problem.'"

Analysts said a selloff of arms makers' shares was an overreaction.

"We think that a flat defense budget" (excluding overseas contingency operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan) "is what investors and the defense industry already expect," said Rob Stallard of RBC Capital Markets.

"We think the knee-jerk selling in response to today's headlines has created an opportune entry point for our preferred defense names, notably Raytheon Co and General Dynamics Corp," he added in a note to clients.

The Pentagon has been tightening its belt in the hope of warding off deep cuts amid the concern over budget deficits.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates already had eliminated or scaled back more than 20 troubled or "excess" weapons programs since April 2009. Last June he ordered the military to come up with more than $100 billion in overhead savings over five years, which could be reinvested in higher priority programs.

The chairmen of Obama's deficit commission as well as a Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force each had called for cuts in projected military spending of up to $1 trillion over 10 years, far more than Obama proposed.

OBAMA'S GOAL

The core Pentagon budget is now about $530 billion, roughly $10 billion less than Gates said was critical when the Obama administration sent Congress its spending plan for 2012.

The Defense Department could easily meet Obama's goal -- which amounts to saving an average of about $40 billion a year -- without jeopardizing the U.S. military's global dominance, said Gordon Adams, a senior White House official for national security budgets from 1993 to 1997.

"It's fundamentally trivial," he said. "This is stuff a comptroller can do while playing with his prayer beads." He suggested it would mean shrinking the force "a bit," trimming and deferring some hardware purchases and finding more efficient ways to handle operations and maintenance spending.

But Mackenzie Eaglen, a national security analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the world was not getting any safer and the U.S. bill would come due.

"The need to modernize the inventory of all the services is not going away and that bill will simply grow larger the longer policymakers defer modernization," she said.

The Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, said he had "grave concerns" about spending reductions while the U.S. military was involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The Defense Department accounts for roughly 20 percent of federal spending and roughly half of discretionary, non-mandated spending.

Gates said in January the United States planned to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years, including a reduction of up to 47,000 troops. That came on top of the $100 billion cost-savings drive that Gates kicked off last year.

"My greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the nation's deficit problems," Gates said last August.

(Reporting by Missy Ryan, Phil Stewart and Jim Wolf; editing by Christopher Wilson)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
repar wrote:
Bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, and any other place they are stationed–this should cut costs by quite a lot. And, this would mean we would have more boots on our ground instead of somewhere else! Stop outsourcing military jobs to contractors who are way overpaid and are leeches on the military budget. Having military personnel do the jobs, i.e., payroll, mess hall, administration, etc., will keep people employed and subject to the UCMJ–which contractors are not subject to. There are ways to trim the military-industrial complex without impinging on our national security.

Apr 13, 2011 10:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
idlespire1 wrote:
I totally agree with repar Re: outsourcing to mercenaries. America does NOT need to be the global police. We should focus more on targeted objective than the occupation strategy of the prior administration. That did nothing but irritate (to be kind) the locals.

Apr 13, 2011 11:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Trooth wrote:
Scrapping some missions sounds like a welcome change of pace. A war on Al Queda yes I can agree with that. A war on terrorism can not be won and is as effective as a war on drugs. War on Al Queda at this point needs to be fought with intelligence and foreign cooperation. Ground troops are not effective, no one has ever truly won in Afghanistan in modern history. Time to pack up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and stop these missions. Let NATO stand on their own. We pretty much finance the military for the rest of our friends. They don’t make big navys because of the US, same thing with jets etc. You can have better social programs than the US when the US is your ally and is spending what we spend on our military. Lets even the playing field, strengthen our home defenses, embolden our allies, and learn how to pick our battles more effectively.

Apr 13, 2011 11:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.