Gates' "final battle" at the Pentagon
Friday, June 4, 2010 at 12:10AM 
Nice editorial by WAPO.
The set-up:
Robert M. Gates spent his first two years focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in each case backing a "surge" to turn around U.S. fortunes. Now, with his time in office probably dwindling, he's taken on a final mission: reforming Pentagon spending so that the United States will be able to maintain its military forces in an era of fiscal austerity. Though the outcome of a war isn't at stake, it's crucial that Mr. Gates succeed.
Gates strives to keep his divisions and such in this uncertain world, so he targets the "tail" behind the "tooth."
This is, to use some military jargon, a target-rich environment. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon budget has nearly doubled, not counting the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Much has gone to non-military ends. Health-care costs, for example, have risen from $19 billion to $51 billion and make up nearly a tenth of the entire budget. A military family of four pays an average of $1,200 annually for health care, compared with $3,200 for other federal employees. Wages have risen 43 percent, compared with 32 percent in the private sector.
While the military's overall size has shrunk since the Cold War, generals, admirals and their headquarters have remained intact. The private sector has flattened and streamlined management since 2000, but the number of levels of staff between the secretary of defense and a line officer has grown from 17 under Donald Rumsfeld to as many as 30 under Mr. Gates. The latter likes to point out that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be approved by five four-star headquarters.
A seasoned veteran of Washington, Mr. Gates doesn't aim for radical change. He'd like to cut $15 billion or so from these costs in the 2012 defense budget. The problem, of course, is Congress.
A real sign of presidential courage would be to veto a congressional defense bill loaded up with the usual pork, like, as noted in the editorial, a second engine for the F-35 fighter that the Pentagon says it does not want.
Reminds me of the line from the "Contact" (from the military industrialist S.R. Haddon played by John Hurt in my all-time favorite role of his):
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
Reader Comments (1)
This is great post and subject and hoping you keep writing on this topic. Also are there some revisions in DOD policies that could impact costs of the Tail?
For example would it make sense for the investment by the federal government in the
National Guard to be prioritized somehow? IMO it [National Guard costs] is in fact a not-so-hidden subsidy to STATES for disaster ops and law enforcement backup as opposed to mobilization needs of the Active Forces? I think there have been almost two dozen studies of the NG role in last three decades with almost none of their recommendations implemented. NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration) did one for FEMA under Congressional mandate in mid-90's that suggested DOD make some decisions about NG state role and utilization and fund that mission in an entirely different way. FEMA funds state guard deployments in Presidential disasters and emergencies through the President's DRF [Disaster Relief Fund]!