Comments to a friend on the proposed Defense Budget

Sorry it’s taken me a bit to get back to you, but thanks for asking my opinion of the SECDEF’s proposed budget. I really do not have any better visibility of the details than what you see in the press. Given that disclaimer, my comments are simply on approach. (I generally agreed with Ralph Peters' analysis of the specific systems affected.)
I’m pretty much a fan of the direction Sec Gates has taken the department. He has been staunchly effective in forcing the services to pay attention to, and engage in, the fights we’re currently in. That is harder than you might imagine because of all the constituents in the congress and the defense industry that are driven by forces that have little to nothing to do with winning wars. Further the services themselves are each enamored with their pet visions of what future wars SHOULD look like are therefore are only interested in buying systems that fit those visions.
Were it not for two factors, I would be a big fan of severely cutting defense spending (like in half):
1. We’re (unfortunately) currently engaged in (at least) two wars. Given that we have committed the nation’s sons and daughters, we must continue to fund these expensive endeavors at sufficient levels to enable success.
2. The nation continues to derive significant unexpected benefits from defense funded R&D. Inefficient perhaps, but a historically highly effective means to drive innovation in areas and technologies that might otherwise get little or no private sector investment.
The secretaries’ budget at $534B is 4% higher than last year, but there are strong winds blowing that we will attempt to fund our current wars out of this budget and not request any supplementals. Doing so will require real discipline within the DoD and will represent a serious reduction in real defense spending (esp. given inflation). So, I like the level and the strong programmatic support item #1 above. Finally, just about ANY defense budget will support item #2 regardless of the outyear capabilities pursued, so I’m a fan of supporting a broad array of capabilities that can be employed in a wide range of types of operations. And I’m fan of continually relooking, revamping our acquisition strategies and programs in order to avoid expensive, overly specific systems (like the Army’s future combat system and the F22) that remove options as we evolve.
History shows how difficult it is to get the next war right, but it also shows that we must be diligent and constantly prepare. Therefore, what matters most is to have an ongoing vigorous national debate, flexible and transparent procurement and budgeting systems and R&D system based on partnerships between public and private sector entities that quickly and routinely moves technology to the private sector. I'm not sure just how the proposed budget would support any of these things, but Sec Gates has consistently shown progress on all these fronts.