The Pentagon: Defense Budget Cuts and Increasing NATO’s Role

During a press conference held by U.S. president Barack Obama, with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and a number of leading weapon manufacturers by his side, unprecedented cuts in the U.S. defense budget were announced. These cuts acclimate well with the era of frugality after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The president also stressed that the U.S. would be moving its focus from army operations toward naval and air force operations, while stressing the importance of cooperation with NATO.

Obama added that this announcement came after discussion and revision by specialized committees and institutions which lasted for nine months. They arrived at the decision to cut the defense budget by $480 billion over the next decade. This cut will include between 10 and 15 percent of the army in order to invest more into the sectors of the navy, air force and missile production.

Even though these cuts will be determined by the U.S. federal budget for the coming year, Obama reassured, “Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.” There was also an announcement about decreasing 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers from the U.S. army stationed in Europe, because there is no longer any worry about a Russian invasion in the region. At the same time, he stated that “the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone or the United States alone. It requires all elements of our national power working together in concert with our allies and our partners.” The defense budget will focus on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, which enable the countering of China’s growing military power.

Obama did not leave out the importance of focusing on the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. In the past, he has called upon many countries during OPEC summits to encourage military to military relations (as during his visit in Australia), and he called for a gradual increase of U.S. military presence in Australia. He also focused on the importance of cooperating with Indonesia in its fight against terrorism, while stressing the importance of promoting a U.S. military presence in Asia and the Asia-Pacific to counter the Chinese military capacity. (The U.S. military is considered one of the largest militaries that operates outside its borders.)

Obama also made a note of the necessity of improving the level of coordination between his allies in the Atlantic by shared maneuvers and consulting assignments in Latin America and Africa. These consulting assignments would be universalized with allies in vital regions, and would make up for cuts in the U.S. military presence.

Secretary of Defense Panetta described the cuts and new methods as a historical transformation toward the future. He pointed out that these budget revisions are based on four principles: maintaining the prestige of the U.S. military, establishing a small but highly efficient military force (which would be much better than a large and inefficient force), government-wide cuts in a number of sectors and maintaining the voluntary nature of U.S. military enrollment. These principles will enable the possibility of a ground war in North Korea, and they will enable the countering of threats in the Strait of Hormuz at the same time. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, holds the view that “all of the trends, demographic trends, geopolitical trends, economic trends and military trends are shifting toward the Pacific.” He later added that “nobody has said and nowhere in the document does it say we’re not going to fight land wars.”

The revisions that took place over nine months were summarized in the determining of the new important and strategic regions to the U.S., firstly, and it determined the size of the cut in the army sector for the benefit of other military sectors. Secondly, it shows a lower number of human losses, and thirdly, it focuses on promoting cooperation with allies and developing their military roles.

This means that there will be an increase in the direct role of allies and a decrease in direct U.S. interference, especially on ground, when possible. Obama used Libya as an example of NATO-led interference with the simultaneous assistance of U.S. military and technology.

All in all, these elements take into consideration the U.S. economic crisis, how to solve this crisis by cutting back on spending in numerous sectors on one hand, and maintaining the sustainability of international U.S. leadership on the other hand. It also takes into consideration the role of regional allies in places that Washington describes as critical regions.

It emphasizes the attempt of the U.S. leadership to continue holding on to power, and increasing the participation and roles of others, while sharing the weight of existing or coming crises. It also reduces the direct dependence on U.S. leadership, (except in times of extreme necessity) in the dealing with the matters of our regional and international world. The cuts described in the plan include and will affect the entire world.