Pruning the Pentagon

Will Obama's plans still protect the nation?

January 09, 2012
  • President Barack Obama unveiled a plan to put a greater military emphasis on naval and air forces and reduce the Army from 570,000 troops to 490,000.
President Barack Obama unveiled a plan to put a greater military emphasis on naval and air forces and reduce the Army from 570,000 troops to 490,000. (Reuters Photo)

The federal government has a big problem with spending more than it takes in, and closing the gap is going to get harder in the coming years. So it's reasonable for President Barack Obama to conclude that, along with other parts of the government, the Pentagon is going to have to trim down. Done carefully and gradually, the downsizing can be done without jeopardizing national security.

Some Republicans in Congress strenuously object. California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the Armed Services Committee, called the administration's proposed cuts "severe and disproportionate." Arizona Sen. John McCain said they would "give the perception of American weakness" and place the country "in the greatest peril" in decades.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, though, defense spending today is the highest it has been since World War II. Under Obama's plan, the Pentagon budget would rise enough each year to keep up with inflation — meaning its purchasing power would not diminish. Its priorities for spending that money, though, would shift. That's where the debate needs to be. Yes, a curb in defense spending growth is justified, but will the shift in priorities protect the nation?

The United States would continue to lay out more for the military than the next 10 countries combined. "Our military will be leaner," declared the president, "but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority."




Obama says the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the U.S. should avoid prolonged, large-scale ground wars. But if there's one thing Americans have learned in the last decade, it's that the fight you expect may not be the one you get. Would the reduced number of troops suffice in case of a war — prompted, say, by a North Korean invasion of South Korea or an attack by terrorists who have been given a safe haven in Iran — that demands a large number of troops on the ground?


