The State of the Union and the Military: Balancing Defense With Debt

When Houston comes to play at San Antonio's AT&T Center next Friday night, seven people jammed in among the 19,000 Spurs and Rockets fans would represent roughly the proportion of the U.S. population fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq: 150,000 troops out of a nation of 308.7 million people, 0.00048 percent.

Just as stunning as America's non-participation in its wars is the cost the country is running up in the name of national security: more than $700 billion this year – twice as much as in 2001 and more than the rest of the world combined spends on defense.

To paraphrase Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, never have so few people taken personal responsibility for the nation's defense -- and not since World War II have Americans paid so much for it.

Those two facts bookend what will be a tough year for the military as it struggles to conclude two wars. And they mark a difficult path ahead for President Obama, who outlines his plans in the State of the Union Address Tuesday evening, and for Congress: Both face the growing realization that the United States can't afford the military it has. Along with the faltering economy and growing skepticism about America's role as the world's policeman, there is recognition that the country's staggering debt is a national security issue that deserves at least as high a priority as a new long-range bomber or another pay raise for the troops.

"The United States faces a watershed moment: it must decide whether to increase its already massive debt in order to continue being the world's sheriff or restrain its military missions and focus on economic recovery,'' write Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman in the journal Foreign Affairs.

As Gates put it earlier this month, in announcing a slowdown -- not a reversal -- of the next five years of defense spending, "This country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. government gets its finances in order.'' But, he asserted, global operations by the Defense Department will not change. "Nobody's asked us to stop doing something.''

More bluntly, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, says, "The biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt."

A major cost driving big defense budgets is the war in Afghanistan, at $5.7 billion a month in direct costs. The more tragic cost: 499 Americans killed there in the past year -- 57 percent more than in the previous year -- and some 4,600 who were brought home seriously wounded. President Obama had promised that starting in July the troops "will come home.'' Despite growing doubts about whether its counterinsurgency strategy is working, the Obama administration agreed in November to continue military support in Afghanistan through the end of 2014.

The war's strain on the troops is deepening, although the military services continue to meet their recruiting and retention goals -- perhaps in part because of the sour civilian job market. Inside the ranks, though, the pace is furious: some units are repeatedly allowed less than 18 months at home between yearlong deployments -- even though Army leaders acknowledge it takes two full years to recover, emotionally and physically, from 12 months of combat.

The Army is experiencing an alarming increase in drug abuse, crime and suicides. Last year 343 soldiers, Army civilians and family members took their own lives, an increase of 69 from 2009. More than 13,000 active-duty soldiers are considered unfit for war duty because of chronic physical or mental problems.

But as Gates noted, global U.S. military operations continue apace, from the spy planes that cruise China's coastline to the ballistic missile submarines that lurk in the North Atlantic. The U.S. military is a far-flung colossus, with 1.4 million active-duty personnel, including 103,000 serving aboard ships, assigned to duty within the United States and deployed to 166 countries. Almost 66,000 are highly trained commandos.

The Pentagon fields 112 bombers, 1,788 advanced fighters and 485 rugged cargo planes, the world's largest and busiest military airlifter fleet. The United States continues to dominate the world's oceans, with 286 warships, including 11 aircraft carriers and 64 attack and ballistic missile submarines.

Although Gates claims to have squeezed as much savings as possible from this juggernaut, others have identified where cuts could be safely made. (Detailed analysis of defense spending is difficult because the financial books are a mess, according to the Pentagon's own inspector general and the General Accounting Office.) Proposals for defense cuts will play out against an epic struggle in Congress between defenders of the status quo, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Republican Buck McKeon, and dedicated budget-cutters like the Senate's Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who backs the Deficit Commission's recommendation to immediately freeze defense spending while looking for deeper cuts.

Analysts offer these ideas for minor and deep cuts:

-- Adjusting military pay, benefits and allowances. For a decade, troops have enjoyed raises beyond their civilian counterparts (11 percent more for comparable work, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Pay raises could be postponed without affecting recruiting, many analysts believe. Benefits might also be modified. Thanks to previous congressional generosity, military health care now costs $50.7 billion a year; health insurance premiums still cost only $460 a year, compared with the average annual premium of private-sector workers of $4,000, according a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Health premiums for new soldiers might be raised. Other reforms are badly needed, including reducing unnecessary emergency room visits at military hospitals.

-- Trimming military retiree benefits. In 2001 Congress bestowed lifetime medical benefits on military retirees, a program that now costs $11 billion a year.

-- Closing military commissaries, the subsidized mega-stores where military families and retirees shop, and merge Pentagon-run schools into local public school systems.

-- Ending across-the-board pay increases. A sergeant in supply earns the same basic pay as a special forces sergeant who is a medic and speaks three languages. A system that instead rewards special skills and risks could save about $40 billion over six years, according to Gordon Adams.

-- Cutting the force. The largest of the armed services, the Army, currently weighs in at a wartime high of about 570,000 active-duty soldiers. Through natural attrition and a decrease in recruiting, that could be cut to 520,000. In a crisis, the difference could be made up by mobilizing combat-ready Army National Guard and reserve units.

-- Bringing the boys home. Some 80,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Europe, even though the Cold War has been over for a decade.

-- Putting new high-priced weapons at the back of the line. That might be a prudent risk, given that conflicts in the foreseeable future are likely to require highly trained personnel rather than highly specialized equipment like the F-35 fighter now in development. According to the centrist think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the Marine Corps version of the F-35 – struggling with technical problems and cost overruns -- should be cancelled. The planned purchase of 1,763 Air Force and Navy variants could be cut in half; any gaps could be filled by F-16s and unmanned drones, which have longer range than the F-35, extending an aircraft carrier's reach.

The president will outline his own ideas Tuesday and in greater detail in the new federal budget he will propose shortly. But the defense establishment, like a battleship, turns slowly, and Obama's next State of the Union Address in 2012 likely will again celebrate those few who serve -- and take note of the significant cost.