The Dangers of Defense Sequestration

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently called the world “a mess.” With a resurgent Russia chasing czarist glory through invasions and occupations of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the cruel Islamic State establishing itself as a power in Mesopotamia, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran building a Shia proxy arc from Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon on the Mediterranean through Syria and Iraq to Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula, and China scooping up islands throughout the South China Sea, Albright’s comment is an understatement.

It is at precisely this time, perhaps the most dangerous point in world history since 1938, that the Obama administration is downsizing America’s defenses through astonishing budget cuts compounded by defense “sequestration.” Mackenzie Eaglen, the American Enterprise Institute’s highly respected defense analyst, concludes the “drawdown of the last six years has been unlike any other in modern times. It is modest in percentage and dollar terms, but steeper in practical effect and reduced output. What is essentially a 20 percent cut in spending will feel more like double when it is over.” These cuts imperil American security and put our servicemen and women at risk.

America’s defense drawdown erodes military readiness and risks creating a “hollow force” not seen since the post-Vietnam days of the Carter administration. Six of the Navy’s fleet of ten aircraft carriers are currently in dock undergoing some type of significant maintenance. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said that due to sequestration, “we . . . stopped work on some of the projects in the shipyards: the Vinson we slowed down dramatically, the Reagan, and the George H. W. Bush” were also impacted. Down from fifteen carriers during the Reagan years, the Navy simply cannot conduct its required missions under such circumstances for much longer.

This article was originally published in the Daily Journal, November 18, 2014.

Greenert noted that deployments, which used to last six months, now keep our sailors at sea for nine months or more. “That’s not sustainable,” he stated, and there is no relief in sight. The long deployments and heavy operational pace have taken their toll not only on sailor morale, but also on the carriers and their escorts themselves. Excess wear and tear caused the USS Lincoln’s catapult water break to become so worn that maintenance folks had never seen such damage. The USS Roosevelt has problems with its arresting gear water cooler. Damage to the USS Eisenhower’s shafts, rudders, and distilling unit will keep it in maintenance well into 2015. Sequestration will force the Navy to mothball half the cruiser fleet, the warships that ride shotgun for the carriers.

The Navy’s elite Top Gun school, where aviators train in aerial combat tactics, is practically grounded due to lack of serviceable planes. F/A-18 Hornet fighter squadrons often have only two or three fighters that are flyable. Scores of Hornets await maintenance because spare parts are not available or must be cannibalized from other planes. Boeing and the Navy lack engineers to inspect and maintain the versions of the fighter. Idled aircraft mean idled pilots, who are deprived of their ability to train prior to deployment to conflict zones.

Readiness is not just a Navy problem. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh said his “airplanes are falling apart . . . They’re just flat too old.” In 2007, F-15 fighters were grounded during high tempo operations in Iraq and Afghanistan due to cracks in their canopies. The same thing happened to F-16D fighters last month.

In a recent speech, Army General John Campbell warned: “In the event of a crisis, we’ll deploy units at a significantly lower readiness level but our soldiers are adaptive and agile, and over time, they will accomplish their mission. But their success will come with a greater cost of higher casualties.” Newly retired Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos told Congress essentially the same thing: “The primary concern with out-of-balance readiness of our non-deployed operating forces is an increased risk in the timely response to unexpected crisis or large-scale contingencies.”

The 2014 bipartisan panel headed by former Clinton administration Secretary of Defense William Perry tasked with reviewing the Pentagon’s budget planning came to the following conclusion: “Today the [Department of Defense] is facing major readiness shortfalls that will, absent a decisive reversal of course, create the possibility of a hollow force that loses its best people, underfunds procurement, and shortchanges innovation. The fact that each service is experiencing degradations in so many areas at once is especially troubling at a time of growing security challenges.” Former Senator Jim Talent, a member of the panel, called its unanimous report “a stunning rebuke of the government’s defense policies over the last three years.”

It appears that the administration finally is beginning to understand the hollow force crisis. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work told a Washington think tank last week that “it would be unconscionable to send American troops into a fight where they are not adequately trained and equipped.” The White House insisted on defense sequestration during the 2012 budget showdown to give itself a future chit to trade for increased domestic spending. But defense sequestration will result in a hollow force that undermines American security and subjects our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen to unnecessary risk. America and those who defend her deserve better than to be used for such political bargaining, especially in light of the “mess” the world faces. Ending defense sequestration should be the first item on the agenda for the president and new Congress in January.