The budget
decisions derived from the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) suggest more and more that the military's long-term
preparedness is in doubt. The QDR is a mandatory assessment of
resources, force structure, and programs that the Pentagon provides
the President and Congress. It also outlines strategy for
addressing issues such as budget and acquisition priorities. A
recent Air Force decision to terminate the alternative engine
program for its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) raises questions
regarding defense budget priorities. Congress needs to recognize
the warning signs of trouble ahead, reverse some of the
department's worst decisions, and address the larger federal
spending issues that are forcing the armed services to make poor
choices.
Why
Worry?
America's national
security is in peril when the armed forces look good on paper but
cannot actually perform their missions. "Hollow force" describes
what happens when military readiness declines because of a lack of
adequate funding. A hollow force lacks the resources (1) to provide
trained and ready forces, (2) to support ongoing operations, and
(3) to modernize. Today's military is not hollow, but it could
become so in a decade or less if funding for the military isn't
adequate. When the armed forces make trade-offs to address
short-term needs, they risk a hollow force in the long-term.
A
Questionable Call
The JSF will be
America's newest fighter aircraft. Concerned that the program which
would produce tens-of-billions of dollars in aircraft was overly
dependent on a single contractor, Congress required the development
of an alternate source for the plane's most critical component, the
engine. Now, the Air Force has recommended terminating the
alternative engine program, a move that would save $1.8 billion in
development costs. The Air Force would then use these funds to buy
items for which there is an immediate need, such as unmanned aerial
vehicles.
Cancelling the
alternative development program, however, raises concerns. That
decision means that the U.S. and its allies will have only one
design for the engine that will power the majority of their future
tactical fighter fleet. That's risky proposition, especially since
the primary engine design has not yet been fully tested.
While the Air
Force may save money in the short-term by eliminating the
alternative program, the long-term fiscal impact is less clear.
Without competition, the sole-source engine will undoubtedly cost
much more. Moreover, eliminating the alternative program wastes the
$1.3 billion the Air Force has already spent developing it.
Spending a lot of money in the long run in order to save a little
today is a counterproductive strategy. When the Pentagon makes
decisions as it did with the JSF program, it is getting cash by
mortgaging the future, akin to paying off credit cards with credit
cards.
Congress
Can Do Better
Congress must
address spending on defense and non-defense programs, particularly
entitlement programs. Defense spending prospects a decade from now
are bleak with mandatory federal outlays, such as Medicare and
Social Security, consuming an increasingly large part of the
federal budget. Congress needs to reverse the Pentagon's short-term
thinking and the growth of entitlements to prevent the hollow force
from becoming a reality-sooner or later.
James
Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for
National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.