On the one hand, over the long haul, the reduction in spending isn't so bad. If the reduction in spending could be managed intelligently, it wouldn't be so bad. And if it helps get our federal spending--including non-defense spending--under control, in the long run that is needed to retain our economic base of our national power.
However, the military was basically told not to plan for the sequestration. So in the short run the seemingly small cuts will be very bad. The vast majority of defense spending is pretty much locked in for the short run, such as personnel costs, weapons contracts, and infrastructure. The only amount that can be readily cut at the last minute is readiness and operations. So there will be less training, less maintenance, and fewer deployments abroad (which is a form of training as well as putting forces in place in case of war, to reassure friends, and induce caution in enemies).
While I am most concerned about the impact on Army readiness--because the Army is the main service engaged in battle now--Navy readiness, since that service is least involved in the wars we are fighting yet is very active in forward presence, is already flirting with disaster. See here, here, here, and here.
The Air Force, which is relying on older and older planes as replacements are delayed and reduced (the F-22 for the latter and the F-35 for both--not to mention aerial refueling and long-range bombers), needs more money to keep those aging platforms flying.
Plus the troops at the front in Afghanistan or South Korea will get priority for what is left for readiness and maintenance. And the nuclear forces--you don't mess with readiness and maintenance in that category. So the impact will be fall hard on those who remain back in the United States in case of emergencies.
Do that, and combat experienced troops who understand that they aren't being allowed to train to fight will start to leave the service. So green troops who may not even really appreciate what they are missing will fill out the military over time.
Unless the ten-year sequestration order can be reordered to greatly reduce this year's cuts--which we are already more than a third of the way through (the fiscal year started October 1, 2012) and then phase in the total cuts more gradually, the sequestration will really harm our military despite the seemingly small relative amount.
So I have to say that at this point, with this sequestration, I'm against it.
But I have many other hands left, sad to say.
Yet the selection of Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, regardless of whether he is confirmed, demonstrates the president's commitment to cutting our defense budget--and getting a Republican to do the deed.
So we can count on the president attempting to reduce the deficit--or just allow domestic spending--by cutting defense spending. So if the Republicans succeed in preserving defense spending by nullifying the sequestration, the president will be back with future budgets to scale back defense spending. Count on it.
Yet if the sequestration goes into effect, would the president be so bold as to propose more cuts on top of that? In the long run, couldn't this help the defense budget?
But the president could be so bold as to pocket the sequestration cuts in defense spending and then go for more.
Just as bad, one way out might be to raise taxes to pay for the defense spending, which will undermine our economic base that supports our military power.
Oh, and just as our military is hit, other countries not friendly to us are expanding their power. And a sea of troubles all around us in our evening news. Could a war erupt because we don't appear strong enough to fight that war, thus costing us far more than we save by cutting defense spending right now?
Ay, there's the rub.
On balance, I'm against letting the sequestration cuts go through for defense spending. But writers I respect are on both sides of this issue. So I could still be persuaded that I'm wrong to reject sequestration.
We are at war, and this is the debate we are having?
UPDATE: Unwillingness to use force paired with inability to wage war will have bad consequences. Tip to Instapundit.
UPDATE: This doesn't convince me to change my mind.
UPDATE: The Navy is taking a risk that might be justified after years of robust maintenance for the fleet. But in this day and age, this method of coping with sequestration is criminal:
Faced with those cuts, the Navy made a big choice. It opted in the last few months to preserve most of its multi-year shipbuilding programs — at the expense of ship deployments and what’s called “Operations and Maintenance” (O&M) accounts. In other words, the Navy opted for its future over its present.
In what world does the Navy leadership live? Oh sure, they got their "pivot" to the Pacific. So the admirals think they are the golden boys of the Obama administration now? Get real.
Lack of money for the Navy isn't a one-time hit that will be reversed when the president gets back on track. This is your Navy world. Don't be like the old Soviet admirals who refused to accept the post-Soviet financing world and struggled to hang on to every ship and sub in the belief that somehow the glory days of funding would return and save the glorious Red Fleet.
Make sure the ships and subs and planes we can afford to equip or Navy with are ready for war, armed, and manned by trained sailors. I'd rather have too few of those systems under those conditions than have more ships, subs, and planes that can't go to sea or fly with all of their systems running and with crews who know what to do.
With the latter, we just allow our leaders to think we have an effective Navy. In reality, we'll just have more targets to be sunk when they go up against a real foe. yet this is the path our Navy has chosen. Yeah, I'm just silly to worry about that thinking combined with this thinking.
