Cutting Military Spending

In reaction to the report from Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward that the Pentagon had swept a report finding that if they changed the way things were managed, they’d save $125 billion over five years under the rug, the editors of the Washington Post are outraged:

Mr. Work was right to embark on the project but wrong to bury it so hastily. The U.S. military has vital missions around the globe and is already facing severe budget pressures. In order to justify the money that it really needs, Pentagon leaders must confront openly the burden of bloat and wasteful overhead. According to The Post’s report, one member of the defense board told Mr. Work there would be political fallout from the study, because it might call into question Pentagon budget requests. “You are about to turn on the light in a very dark room,” he said. In fact, turning on that light is an essential first step toward credibility and efficiency. The Pentagon needs to be open and candid about its spending problems, not sweep them under a rug.

Don’t expect the Pentagon to change the way they’ve become used to doing things voluntarily. They aren’t subject to the same forces that businesses are and that force businesses to become more efficient.

I’ll give the advice I have given for decades when the subject comes up:

1. Do less. Reduce the mission. Only do things that actually make us more secure. Military force should be a last resort.
2. Reduce the number and size of overseas bases. Tailor to them to the modern way of war.
3. Cut back sharply on the number of general officers. You’d be amazed on how much that will cut expenses. Every general officer wants to add to his number of subordinates and has a pet project.

Demanding abstract “change” or the chestnut of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse will have about the same results it’s had for the last 70 years.