Precision Required in Defense Strategy and Power Projection
In this WP article, the President gets high marks for how he assembled military leadership to support his reduced defense budget. As a citizen, I want to know much more about the foreign policy that is driving defense and about the relationship between State Department and Defense Department coordination in projecting American power to achieve defined outcomes.
American voters need to know:
1. National security outcomes achieved through the associated strategy and budget.
2. The operational relationship between Congress, President, and Departments to achieve the outcomes.
That is called transparency that is required by an informed electorate.
“In creating new defense strategy, Obama attempts to outflank Congress
As President Obama stood on the podium in the Pentagon briefing room Thursday to outline the nation’s defense priorities, the military stood with him. Their primary audience was a few miles across the Potomac River — in Congress.
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose beloved Army will face a significant troop reduction under Obama’s plan, was at the president’s side. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos, whose service will also shrink, stood just behind him. And over Obama’s right shoulder loomed Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the former commander in Iraq who is now chief of staff of the Army.
“Many of us met repeatedly — asking tough questions, challenging our assumptions, making hard choices,” Obama said. “And we’ve come together today around an approach that will keep our nation safe and our military the finest in the world.”
For a president denounced by Republican rivals as a weak and irresponsible commander in chief, the show of military support represented a political windfall for Obama as he begins campaigning in earnest for a second term.
But it also marked an evolution in Obama’s practice of Washington politics. It is evidence that, after being outmaneuvered by congressional Republicans several times, he does not intend to make the same mistakes in an election year.
By enlisting the military’s help in defining its strategic priorities, Obama has sought to ensure that he has the military’s support when his defense budget goes before Congress, including the committees led by some of his toughest Republican critics. Military leaders, in turn, now have reason to believe that Obama will not agree to more cuts.
The eight-page strategy document outlines the country’s changing military priorities after a decade of war and enshrines as policy the drone killings and other methods that Obama has relied on during his term. More than any speech he has delivered, the review places Obama’s distinctive mark on the direction of the military.
The document — and the process that created it — also sends an unmistakable message to Congress as the threat of automatic budget cuts looms: Obama and the military leadership agree on the size, scope and mission of the armed forces in a new age of austerity. The White House wasted no time in turning the spotlight on Congress, using polite language that amounted to a dare.
“The challenge will be on Capitol Hill,” said Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser. “It will be challenging to maintain the unified nature of the strategy through the congressional budget process.”
Under the Budget Control Act, signed by Obama in August as part of a hard-won deal with Congress to lift the borrowing limit, the Pentagon budget must be reduced by about $487 billion in the next decade, a roughly 8 percent decrease.
But under a process known as sequestration, that figure could double if Obama and Congress fail by the end of the year to cut an additional $1.2 trillion in government spending in the next decade.”
Via the Washington Post