Talk of personnel cuts at DoD “overblown”

The Stars & Stripes reports that Military Times has discovered that, while it’s true that personnel costs in the Department of Defense have grown by 78%, those costs have actually shrank compared to total spending;

Experts quoted by The Military Times say some statements from the top brass are flat-out overblown.

Gordon Adams, a former national security budget director for the White House, suggested that focusing attention on military personnel costs is being done in an effort to shape the political debate in Washington.

Congress is deeply resistant to cutting pay and benefits. So the Pentagon leadership’s rhetorical focus on soaring personnel costs may help reduce pressure on the broader military budget.

“If you focus on the least doable thing, what you gain is leverage to bring the whole budget up,” Adams said. “By pointing to the hardest thing to change, they hope that the whole budget will continue to be high.”

Well, not only is it the “hardest thing to change”, it impacts fewer voters, because cutting actual defense spending impacts contracting and manufacturing jobs and entire local economies. Whereas, cutting the number and pay of troops affects far fewer people – people who wouldn’t ordinarily vote for the current administration and it’s less likely to have any real impact on elections.

Reducing the force without reducing actual defense spending worked for the Clinton Administration, and those people aren’t particularly imaginative and can’t see past the end of their nose, anyway. The generals’ careers are tied to the current administration because they know that if we ever get a real President concerned about defense, they’ll all be out of a job, so, like a flock of catbirds, they mimic the calls they hear in their echo chamber.

Category: Big Army