The U.S. armed services, widely recognized as the world’s most ready
and mobile military, is painting a picture of itself as a stagnant force
trapped at home under automatic spending cuts just three weeks away.
Army brigades won’t be ready to fight.
Navy aircraft carriers won’t be deployed. The
Air Force won’t be able to operate radar surveillance 24 hours a day.
The dire scenarios are contained in a series of memos sent to
Congress and obtained by The Washington Times. They stir memories of the late 1970s, when the
Army declared itself a “hollow force” because depleted combat units could not perform in a war.
(SEE RELATED: Navy to clip Blue Angels’ wings if sequester hits)
In the current instance, an
Army
memo uses the physiological term “atrophy” to underscore a warning that
it will not be able to command brigade combat teams that can respond to
hot spots outside of
Afghanistan and
South Korea.
“The
strategic impact is a rapid atrophy of unit combat skills with a
failure to meet demands of the National Military Strategy by the end of
this year,” the
Army wrote in a recent memo to Capitol Hill.
The
Pentagon’s warnings are intended to prod
Congress
and President Obama to reach a deal that averts “sequestration” —
automatic, across-the-board spending cuts set to begin March 1 that
would remove up to $500 billion from the projected 10-year defense
budget.
The debate moves to the
Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, when the members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff testify in person on what their memos predict.
The
Pentagon
already has cut more than $480 billion from its 10-year budget and is
operating under a continuing resolution that holds spending at 2012
levels. Under sequestration, the
Pentagon would have to cut an additional $42 billion by Sept. 30 and as much as $500 billion over the next 10 years.
(SEE RELATED: Navy delays aircraft carrier deployment to Middle East)
If
sequestration were to occur briefly before politicians finally reach a
deal that kills it, the damage to military training and forces would be
minimal. But if it were to remain in place for several years, the
smaller military budgets would squeeze out ships, planes and troops.
“What it would mean is a smaller military,” said
Todd Harrison, an analyst at the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.
“It would be a military that would not be able to do all the missions
it is supposed to be able to do today. That’s the bottom line.”
Perhaps the
Air Force’s quick review of a sequestered budget is the scariest. In its “Sequestration Implementation Plan,” the
Air Force notes a lack of trained employees to manage “the nuclear enterprise,” referring to its arsenal of atomic missiles and bombs.
To meet a nearly $14 billion shortfall this year, the
Air Force
would reduce worldwide military communications, stop testing some
weapons and cut flying hours, which would produce a less-ready fighter
and bomber fleet.
“Mitigating [overseas operations] shortfall and sequestration will have drastic/long lasting impacts,” the
Air Force states.
Said
Mr. Harrison:
“It means a smaller force all around. Some possible contingencies have
to take on more risks. They won’t be able to respond as quickly or with
as many forces if the military has to get smaller.”
The
Navy is not using only briefing papers to drive home the point.
Last
week, it announced the postponement of the $3.3 billion overhaul and
refueling of the nuclear-powered carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The news
came a few days after the
Navy
had sent another alarming signal, saying the carrier USS Harry S.
Truman strike group would not sail to the Middle East this month as
previously scheduled.
Defense analysts ask what kind of message
does that send to Iran, which the U.S. and Europe suspect is in quest of
nuclear weapons?
“Long before the full impact of sequestration is
felt, the hollowing out of the U.S. military is already under way,”
said defense analyst Frank Gaffney, a senior defense official in
President Reagan’s administration and now president of the Center for
Security Policy, a national security and defense policy organization.
“It will prove devastating to the security of the United States by
emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and allies, and
eviscerating our ability to deter and defeat the former and to join
forces with the latter in defense of freedom.”
Keeping the USS
Truman at home was predicted in a memo to all fleet admirals last month
from Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations.
If
sequestration hits, the memo said, the only way to meet the roughly 9
percent shrinkage in this year’s spending would be to stop training and
exercises for units not scheduled to deploy and reduce naval presence
overseas — a reality that already has occurred with the Truman’s
postponement.
“Once we shut down our sustainment training, it will
take our ships and squadrons about nine months to conduct the
maintenance and training needed to be certified to deploy again,” Adm.
Greenert said.
Winslow Wheeler,
an analyst at the Center for Defense Information, which pushes for
lower defense spending and canceling weapons programs, argues that a
budget of $530 billion today will revert to 2007 levels under which the
Pentagon seemed to do fine.
Mr. Wheeler said that, in a run-up to sequestration, the
Pentagon
continued to fund big weapons, such as the troubled F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, and now claims it has no choice but to loot maintenance and
training funds.
“Their prioritizing procurement and research and
development above the sharp end shows their distorted priorities,” he
said. “They have it exactly wrong. They need to get the junk out of the
procurement budget, like the F-35, to enable adequate funding for what’s
important. Clearly, these people need to be replaced.”
