A consensus is beginning to emerge on the need for the Pentagon to move in a new direction.  This week two reports - from the Center for American Progress and the Center for National Policy - both conclude that the U.S. military must better address unconventional threats, restore the strength of our ground forces, and rebalance the budget to match resources to priorities. These reports were preceded by an essay from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Foreign Affairs that argued along similar lines: "The United States cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything. The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs."  This vision is in stark contrast to the "transformation" strategy the Bush administration and Secretary Rumsfeld brought to the Pentagon.  Future warfare, they said, would involve high tech fights between states; large ground forces were unnecessary, because high-tech precision weapons would obviate the need for boots on the ground.  As a result, not enough U.S. troops were initially sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to secure the countries and billions were spent on outdated weapons systems with little relevance to 21st century challenges.  This misguided defense strategy has had severe implications for our military, and has left the U.S. dangerously exposed and strategically adrift.  Broad bipartisan agreement on the need for a pause in new systems, an end to unlimited budgets and a rematch of capabilities to priorities offers the chance for a serious national discussion about the shape of our military.

Two reports highlight growing consensus on the need for Pentagon reform.  In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, says "The Department of Defense must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs.  The strategy strives for balance in three areas: between trying to prevail in current conflicts and preparing for other contingencies, between institutionalizing capabilities such as counterinsurgency and foreign military assistance and maintaining the United States' existing conventional and strategic technological edge against other military forces, and between retaining those cultural traits that have made the U.S. armed forces successful and shedding those that hamper their ability to do what needs to be done."  Two reports released this week by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the bipartisan Center for National Policy (CNP) echo Gates' statement, showing that a consensus has developed on the need to reform defense policy.  The CAP report says, "Today's security imperatives and budgetary realities will require the next administration to make hard decisions and difficult trade-offs on competing visions of the military and its role in implementing national security strategy.  In order to make these important decisions, the next administration will first have to evaluate the current state of the military; examine the current composition of the Defense budget; and define the threats, challenges, and role of the U.S. military in the 21st century... The next administration will inherit a vastly different military than the one bequeathed to President George W. Bush in January of 2001. After nearly six years of war in Iraq and over seven in Afghanistan, the next administration will have to contend with two wars, a military readiness crisis, recruitment and retention problems, mounting equipment shortages, and an out-of-control defense acquisition process."  The CNP report makes similar points, arguing "We recommend taking all necessary actions to win today's wars while strengthening our all-volunteer force. We suggest building capacity to prevent future conflicts, thus changing the global threat environment in our favor by adding allies and reducing the need for combat deployments. We propose a 'strategic pause' of two years during which the administration, Congress and our national security professionals can develop a sustainable plan for a future force that can meet today's needs, deter and defeat tomorrow's foes, and be affordable in a time of economic crisis." [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. Center for National Policy, 12/09/08. Center for American Progress, 12/10/08]

Adopt a sensible defense budget, balanced for national security challenges.  Both the Center for American Progress and the Center for National Policy argue that Defense Department budgetary priorities should be re-balanced to focus on existing national security challenges, with an eye to maximizing efficiency.  The CNP report found that "the President should adopt a general policy of deferring, for the next two years, commitments to major new and experimental weapons systems outside the scope of what is necessary for today's wars," and further proposed "a series of cost-cutting measures by today's Pentagon not as punishment for having a large budget, but as a serious effort to suggest the hard choices that must be made when there is a gap between capability needs and resource limitations."  The Center for American Progress echoed these defense recommendations, suggesting that the next administration "keep the defense budget flat over the next four years, adjusting for inflation and fluctuations in the U.S. dollar," out of recognition that "today's defense baseline budget is higher than it has been in real dollars since the end of the World War II," and that this sum, " if used wisely, is more than enough to ensure American military predominance while recapitalizing equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, and growing and modernizing the force."  [Center for National Policy, 12/09/08. Center for American Progress, 12/10/08]

Invest in American military personnel.  Both reports also strongly recommend that the U.S. invest in re-enforcing and expanding American military personnel, especially ground forces, which have been under strain due to deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As the Center for National Policy report observes, "The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and their families have been asked to go above and beyond the call of duty year after year, and deserve the sincere appreciation of a grateful nation. The operational tempo of the past several years, however, is unsustainable. Policy must change to save and strengthen the all volunteer force America will need to meet future security requirements."  According to the Center for American Progress, "Developing high-tech expensive weapons programs should never take priority over the investment, support, and development of those serving in our all-volunteer professional military. Our primary investment should always be in the men and women serving in uniform. Investing in their development-in education, training, and quality of life-is investing in the greatest weapon we have."  The Center for American Progress placed special emphasis on ground forces, advocating that the Army and the Marines "meet their new end-strength goals without relaxing recruitment standards or retention and promotion criteria," by "dropping the ban on women serving in combat and repealing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law." The Center for National Policy report gives bipartisan support to the repeal of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."  [Center for National Policy, 12/09/08. Center for American Progress, 12/10/08]

Match resources to priorities.  The CAP report states, "Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted the changing threat environment for the United States. It is increasingly likely that, in this post-9/11 world, U.S. troops will more frequently be assigned to non-traditional warfare tasks, including both kinetic and non-kinetic counterinsurgency operations, rather than full-scale conventional wars with near-peer competitors. While proficiency in conventional warfare cannot be allowed to lapse, the next administration should consider the type of conflicts most likely to be encountered when allocating limited funding to procurement, training, force expansion, and other budgetary requests." CNP recognizes a similar shift in priorities, observing that "several features of the emerging security landscape of the 21st century seem to pose clear and present challenges: the slow but inexorable rise of potential peer competitors and, at a minimum, alternative centers of significant conventional military power; the dispersion of the tools of mass destruction that could threaten America and its citizens; and the persistence for the foreseeable future of transnational terrorist networks." [Center for National Policy, 12/09/08. Center for American Progress, 12/10/08]