As USA Today reported Tuesday, the U.S. Army plans to reduce its ranks by 40,000 soldiers over the next two years. An additional 30,000 troops could be cut if the automatic budget cuts called sequestration kick in as scheduled in October.
Is this really where to cut spending?
The Army now has about 490,000 troops. The fear is that reducing its strength below 450,000, as the additional cuts under sequestration would, might leave the Army too weak to meet its current deployments and respond to future threats.
Then again, perhaps the United States could just have one or two fewer wars. U.S. forces have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade, and there are increasing calls to increase American involvement in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. There should be a limit at some point.
Or the Department of Defense could cut out a couple of gold-plated procurement programs. The cuts to the Army are, of course, dictated by costs. Troops not only have to be paid but housed, fed and clothed. Then there are expenses for pensions, medical care and equipment. Reducing troop strength cuts all of those.
But at the same time, the DOD is still spending on the F-35 program, which is supposed to provide combat aircraft for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. It is now on track to incur a total cost of $1.5 trillion (yes, with a T). And after more than a dozen years in development, it is still not ready.
The DOD is also procuring three Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Named for President Gerald R. Ford, the new class is the bigger, better successor to the already formidable Nimitz-class nuclear carriers.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2016 shows the Ford is expected to cost about $12.9 billion. The cost of the second ship is estimated to be $11.3, while the third should come in at about $13.5 billion. That is almost $38 billion for three ships.
Granted, they are to be spectacular ships – more than 1,000 feet long, with a flight deck measured in acres. They will be capable of topping 35 mph. They will displace more than 100,000 tons and will be, in the words of their builders, “the largest and most complex warship ever built.”
But the U.S. already has 10 Nimitz-class carriers, which at 86,000 tons will remain the biggest warships ever built until the Ford is operational. No other nation has anything remotely like that force. Does the country really need to spend $38 billion to top that now?
Only a handful of nations have any aircraft carriers, none has more than two, and only one – France – has even one nuclear-powered carrier. No other nation has anything comparable to the Nimitz-class, let alone the Ford.
Cutting the Army’s troop strength has effects beyond curtailing the nation’s ability to respond militarily to foreign crises, something we should probably be looking at limiting in any case. The U.S. military has always been a source of economic and educational opportunity, and the Army is the largest service. At a time when economic inequality is growing and increasing is a cause for concern, why would limiting that contribution be the first place to cut defense spending?
The F-35 has been under development and overbudget for years. The Navy’s existing carriers are incomparable. Those programs can wait a little longer. Defense dollars would be better spent on people.
