Pentagon policy bill touts readiness, but defers tough weapons decisions

The fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill assembled by the House Armed Services Committee last week addresses growing concerns within Congress that greater priority should be given to improving the readiness of U.S. military forces.

"This bill continues the committee's commitment to restoring the readiness of our military as its first priority," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said as his panel began to mark up the bill.

"The committee has a responsibility to help ensure that our fighting force is ready not only for today's fights, but also for unexpected conflicts they may face in the future."

But several veteran defense analysts observed that Skelton's committee did not aggressively reorder the Pentagon's budget priorities, nor did it scale back major defense procurement programs, some of which were conceived before the end of the Cold War.

"They've done a kind of a pinking shears approach to acquisition programs," remarked Gordon Adams, former OMB associate director of national security policy.

Skelton acknowledged last week that he and his subcommittee leaders tried to balance "the needs to restore the equipment and training urgently needed now with commitments to the long-term modernization of the services."

But he said the bill, which is slated for House floor action later this week, deals foremost with ways to improve overall readiness -- sometimes at the expense of high-priced weapons systems -- as military units continue to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To this end, the committee trimmed $200 million from the Army's $3.6 billion request for the Future Combat Systems to help pay for an $800 million increase to equip National Guard and Reserve units, whose inventories have been depleted after more than six years at war.

The committee also approved the Pentagon's $2.6 billion request to pay to maintain, transport and procure more Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which have been credited with being the most effective remedy to the ubiquitous roadside bomb threat in Iraq.

It also added nearly $2 billion in "readiness initiatives" addressing military-wide funding shortfalls for operations, training, equipment and maintenance as well as improvements to military barracks.

The panel also mandated a GAO analysis of the current state of readiness across the military. The study will try to determine what other shortfalls exist and offer suggestions on actions to be taken to resolve readiness problems.

"The mark first addresses the near-term imperative to provide all the equipment our soldiers and airmen need for their combat and domestic response needs," Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said. "Doing so is a non-negotiable responsibility of this subcommittee, and takes precedence over all other considerations."

The committee even included language requiring the Pentagon to evaluate -- for the benefit of all the armed services -- an Army proposal to reduce a recurring reason for disqualifying reservists called to active duty: bad teeth.

"The Army has developed a concept that shows great promise for improving the dental readiness of the Army Selected Reserve and National Guard." the committee said in a summary of the bill's main provisions.

But several analysts noted that, aside from the Army FCS and some missile defense programs, most expensive, long-term modernization programs fare well in the committee bill. Some came out ahead, as the committee added $722 million for advanced procurement of Virginia-class submarines and $1.8 billion for an LPD-17 amphibious warfare ship, among several winners.

Adams, the former OMB national security official, observed that difficult choices over competing priorities will not get made as long as the Defense budget continues to swell. The sheer size of the Defense budget will likely punt any real debates over priorities to the next administration.

"Everybody gets a little bit of what they want," Adams said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has tried to reorient the military to focus more on asymmetric warfare -- conflicts against smaller irregular forces that seek to neutralize U.S. military advantages in weaponry and tactics. And last week he signaled that this shift would have budget consequences.

High-priced weapons systems must be relevant in the current conflicts and have a place in future battles against insurgents if they are to survive future budgets, he said.

"I believe that any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that, as I mentioned, are most likely to engage America's military in coming decades," Gates said in a speech in Colorado Springs.

"A program like FCS, whose total cost could exceed $200 billion if completely built out, must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face, as well as for full-spectrum warfare," he added.

For now, Jacques Gansler, who was the Pentagon acquisition chief during the Clinton administration, predicted that lawmakers would be unlikely to buy into any wholesale changes in Defense Department budgets, particularly during an election year. After all, defense programs fuel the economy in many districts.

"They all are very happy with continuing to build the old ships, planes and tanks," Gansler said.