By KATE BRANNEN Published: 5 May 2011 16:17
The battle lines over the U.S. defense budget debate became clearer this week, with Democratic and Republican leaders in the House outlining opposing views for how the United States can remain a strong world power.
A leading Republican would like to see the U.S. maintain its role as the world's policeman, while a Democratic House leader argued that recent defense spending came with real opportunity costs at home.
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, delivered a speech May 5 at the Heritage Foundation in which he voiced his strong opposition to the White House's calls for cuts of $400 billion to security spending over 10 years.
While commending President Barack Obama for the successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden, McKeon said the president's leadership in other areas has been scarce.
"It's my sense that White House defense decisions are putting this great republic on the fast track for decline," McKeon said.
His speech at the Heritage Foundation built on themes he introduced in an op-ed that ran April 28 in USA Today. In both, McKeon pointed to the United States' ongoing involvement in three wars - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya - as reasons not to cut defense.
In addition to these commitments, McKeon pointed to piracy, cybersecurity, humanitarian assistance, protecting space assets and deterring aggression from rising powers as areas where the military's roles are growing.
"The logic has been simply baffling to me: expand our military commitments while cutting our armed forces," McKeon said.
Nor does he support eliminating or reducing capabilities in lower priority mission areas.
"It must be our top priority to field the forces and the hardware necessary to stave off even the most unlikely of contingencies," McKeon said.
As he sees it, Obama's call to cut defense spending is part of a larger foreign policy trend, which McKeon does not like.
During Obama's time in office "American exceptionalism has been called into question," McKeon said. "We have flinched from positions of responsibility as the global order tremors with the forces of hope and change."
His views are in contrast to some Democrats but also members of his own party, who would like to include defense when cutting federal spending.
Those who advocate for reduced defense spending note the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq, the expected withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the handover of operations in Libya to NATO as examples of declining U.S. military commitments around the world.
The death of bin Laden should ensure the beginning of a "robust" withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan this summer, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters May 2.
Speaking earlier in the week at the Center for American Progress, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said that since the Cold War ended, the threats facing the United States have decreased.
While terrorism needs to be addressed, it does not pose the same existential threat as the United States and its allies faced during the Cold War, he said. Defense spending and the structure of NATO should reflect these geopolitical changes, he argued.
Other advocates of reduced defense spending note that one of its costs is increased debt to China and other foreign countries, which weakens U.S. economic power, if not its military might.
While McKeon argued for a United States that acts as a "stabilizing, unifying force in the world," Frank proposed that "living well" at home could be purpose enough for the country.
Frank said he supported maintaining a globally superior force, but asked by what magnitude it needs to dwarf militaries of other countries. He argued for cuts that go much deeper than the ones announced by Obama.
Meanwhile, McKeon rejected the president's plan and said the Pentagon needs to do some "housecleaning."
He said that any savings identified in the defense budget should go back into defense.
For example, McKeon said the Pentagon should not fund the troubled Medium Extended Air Defense System over the next two years and instead direct the money toward the Ground Based Midcourse Defense System, designed to protect the United States against long-range missile attack.
A short-term increase of $425 million to keep the production lines going for the Army's Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles will save the Pentagon expensive shutdown and start-up costs down the road, he said.
McKeon also threw his support behind the alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. He praised the decision of General Electric and Rolls-Royce to fund its engine on their own for 2012.
While Pratt & Whitney is still on contract for the engine, the Pentagon canceled a second contract for a General Electric/Rolls-Royce engine.
"If GE is going to pay for it, there should not be another objection" from the Pentagon, McKeon said.
Defense News
0 comments:
Post a Comment