DepSecDef to Hill: Let’s be ‘rational’

DepSecDef to Hill: Let’s be ‘rational’

In case anyone in Congress was wondering, the Pentagon still stands by all the things it asked to do, even though lawmakers rejected them.

Congress won’t go along with TRICARE fee increases; it would force the Air Force and Navy to keep the aircraft and ships they want to deal; and it will run a harpoon through the next person who even breathes the word “BRAC.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter knows all that, but he stepped forward Wednesday and volunteered to be the grown-up. Everyone agrees that we don’t have a bottomless bank account, he said, which means that there’s no option but to make the oft-discussed “hard choices.” He spoke calmly, with no bomb throwing or finger-pointing, but the message was clear: We’re trying to get this right, and the Hill is not helping.


“When we’re forced to hold on to older, less capable systems, it means we cannot buy newer, more capable systems,” Carter said. “Others can pick one item or another that they favor, but we have to balance them all.”

And then there’s sequestration. The Pentagon, the defense industry and the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on DoD’s budget are getting tired of being stuck in a game of chicken between Republicans and Democrats, Carter said.

“This is something that both by its size and nature is — I’ve used the word irrational,” he said. “It’s irrational from a managerial point of few, for those of us who are supposed to keep complicated programs on track. If you have people working; if you have a flow in your factory or whatever; if you’ve got it all planned out; if you’ve agreed with us and we’re at a place where we’ve got a good thing going, we need economy. It makes a managerial mess out of all the things we’ve tried so carefully to put on this steady footing, our partners in industry and us, that’s why it’s so irrational. It’s managerially irrational.”

Note that Carter, the Yale and Oxford physicist, is not using the rhetoric of violence that so many — including your correspondent, shame on him — have used when talking about the sequester. No “We’d be shooting ourselves in the head;” no “Sword of Damocles;” no “Doomsday Mechanism.” Carter made his best scientific case that Washington’s present course does not make sense and it needs a new one, hoping that an appeal to reason might be the antidote to all this gridlock.

We knew BRAC wouldn’t be popular when we brought it up, but c’mon, Carter said. (In so many words.) Iraq is over; Afghanistan is ending — we’re at a strategic turning point. We would’ve reevaluated our stance and probably shrunk our force no matter how the economy and the budget looked. And given the way they do look, it would be irresponsible not to draw down and not to shrink the military’s footprint accordingly, Carter said. If we don’t do it now, we’ll still have to do it someday.

So will his Al Gore-style appeal to reason break the logjam and get the process moving again? No.

Most congressional defense advocates agree with him, as far as it goes, but their impasse is tied up with larger problems. Democrats insist upon new “revenues,” their code for taxes. Republicans won’t hear of it. As we saw last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has thrown up his hands: If Republicans won’t play ball, fine — he is willing to let sequester take effect and embrace its authors’ fiendish original goal: Make sure everyone is miserable.

That could change after the election, but for now, Carter’s appeal probably will not mean any movement before then.

Join the Conversation

Im with the DepSecDef on this congress in there own money grabbing senselessness is making a train wreak of the DoD budget. Its only going to get worse now due to idiots on the Hill.

We need to remove the line item control of the DoD budget from Congress. Let the people who run DoD determine what gets funded.

BRAC made sense (at least in theory) back in the early 1990s, when we had installations all over the country and troops and ships based in all sorts of places, but…have we opened new bases in the US since 2001? Why would we need to close any more?

Shouldn’t leaving Iraq and Afghanistan be the end to the massive expenditures, or are we going to do something colossally stupid, like continue to funnel billions and billions into the new governments we set up in those countries (which will likely be mired in civil war before long, let’s face it).

At any rate, given the terrible collateral damage BRAC seems to leave behind whenever it comes along, maybe the belt-tightening should start at home, in the Pentagon, amongst all those flag officers and committees that green-lit such amazing programs such as the LCS and F-35.…

Just another reason why these POS “ALL HAVE TO GO”!! Let DOD follow through with BRAC! It’s their budget!

Sequestration isn’t the end of the world. -$50B per year can come out simply because billions are wasted on the LCS, F-35 and things that should not have even breathed air (DDX-Zumwalt, which should be parked because we need crew to do something…more useful). Cruisers can be retired because they offer no value and consume crew again better used for other things. Then there is the fact that we have way too many flag-ranks and SES (AKA, “The No General Left Behind Act”) including we have some 1-stars doing jobs that were done by Colonels. Also-too many DOD civilians. Operation: USELESS DIRT needs to go away at a faster rate. So, the fear-mongering over sequestration doesn’t pass the smell test.

Or another one of my favorites; Major or Lt. Col retires on Friday and you see them as a new-hire DOD civilian doing the same job on Monday. It is an interesting trick and or style of nepotism seen in the depots and other places.

Given the atrocious R&D/procurement record of the DoD over the last decade I’m not sure rational and the defense budget can be used in the same sentence without violating a law of nature.

Rational would be buying systems that work and will actually add value to our deterrent capabilities. As long as we cling to buying systems to placate jocks with stars instead of the less glamorous stuff that actually works, that budget is always going to be doomed.

Idea — DOD and or service sets specs. Contractors build the think with their own money then have a run-off for the best thing and then buy at a fixed price — then allow more than one contractor to build the thing. Jeeps, B24’s and most everything during WW2 was built by everyone. I think Ford built more Jeeps than Willie. No patients or copyrights the government buys it it owns all rights to it. Also no officer or E7 or above can be employed by any contractor dealing with the DOD for at minimum of five years after retirement on a program he/she worked on when on active duty.

Before you completely pan the efforts of Congress in the ongoing budget flap with the President and the Pentagon, keep in mind that 50% of the spending cuts the President proposed in his recent budget came from the DoD. And this at a time when we are facing an Iran that seems determined to obtain nuclear weapons, a China that is becomming progressively more aggressive with our traditonal allies along the Pacific rim, a Russia that recently threated to launch pre-emptive strikes against our missile defense sites in Europe and a North Korea that recently threatened to reduce the city of Seoul, South Korea, to ashes. The President has also shown, in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, that he is willing to increase military ops in remote parts of the world. So, in light of all this, why a 50% cut in the defense budget? Is it really a surprise that the President’s handpicked SecDef, Dep SecDef and Generals are “all in” with the President’s budget?

“When we’re forced to hold on to older, less capable systems, it means we cannot buy newer, more capable systems,” Hmmmm, cancel the new C-27J and Global Hawk Block 30—retain old C-130H and U-2. I have a hard time squaring words and actions. Sorry, it must be me.

In many politicians eyes there is no connection between funding and expected performance. It’s the old “dp more with less” nonsense.

True, but the excess generals and outsourced-to-civilians jobs won’t be the ones cut. *They’re* the ones cutting, so they’ll keep their job, and cut something we actually need.

Agree completely. That (the design part) was done in house for a long time, then for reasons that aren’t rational, we let the contractors start doing it all.

Btw, the UK has the same problem. The Royal Navy farmed out ship design to the contractors back in the 70s, so they could cut the budget (by axing in-house designers and engineers). It’s been about as “successful” as it has been here.

“Is it really a surprise that the President’s handpicked SecDef, Dep SecDef and Generals are “all in” with the President’s budget?”

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Since when do departments go to Congress and say “come on, cut MY budget!” A little convenient, really.

I sort of agree with you, Cut the F-35 & LCS, and you have your 500 Billion.

This would be a great idea — but it can’t work in the present environment, and the services themselves are to blame. They are simply not willing to settle for the capabilities they could get with fixed price contracts, and they’re not willing to walk away from fixed price contracts when the contractor can’t deliver at the stated price.

As long as the services “must have” whatever it is they’re trying to buy — FCS, Comanche, GCV, Crusader, F-22, F-35, LCS, DDX, JTRS … — the contractors know they can’t lose. If it’s cost-plus, the contractor wins even if it’s eventually cancelled. If it’s fixed price, the contractor disguises cost growth as “engineering change orders”, and then gets the service to renegotiate the price upward anyway. There’s no such thing as a “fixed price contract” when the buyer isn’t willing to walk away with nothing.

Well, it’s hard to imagine how you could apply the phrase “more capable” to the Global Hawk Block 30, if you’re talking about the actual system and not the marketing brochure that Congress reads.

I’m with you on the C-27J though.

Have an Idea lets hold back the Administration and Congress pay until they straighten out this mess.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.