Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defense Budget Priorities January 2012

Defense Budget Priorities January 2012

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Peggy Satterfield
the departments investment choices for fy 2013-­‐2017 were derived from this guidance and conform to the 2011 Budget Control Act requiorement to reduce Defense Department future expenditures by approximately $487 billion over the next
decade or $259 billion over the next five years. Reflecting these reductions, the Department will request funding of $525 billion for FY 2013, rising to $567 billion by FY 2017.
the departments investment choices for fy 2013-­‐2017 were derived from this guidance and conform to the 2011 Budget Control Act requiorement to reduce Defense Department future expenditures by approximately $487 billion over the next
decade or $259 billion over the next five years. Reflecting these reductions, the Department will request funding of $525 billion for FY 2013, rising to $567 billion by FY 2017.

More info:

Published by: Peggy Satterfield on Mar 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
 
 Defense Budget Priorities and Choices 1
We developed a defense strategy that transitions our defense enterprise from an
ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐŽŶƚŽĚĂLJ͛ƐǁĂƌƐƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ͕ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƐƚŚĞďƌŽĂĚ
range of U.S. national 
ƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐ͕ĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛ƐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐƚŽ
rebalance and reform, and supports the national security imperative of deficit reduction through a lower level of defense spending
ʹ 
 
/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƚŽŽ͛Ɛ
Strategic Guidance, January 2012
INTRODUCTION
From New Strategic Guidance to Budget Choices
dŚĞĞĨĞŶƐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ
was driven by the approaching end of adecade of war, a changing technological and geopolitical landscape, and the national security
ŝŵƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞŽĨĚĞĨŝĐŝƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛ƐŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĐŚŽŝĐĞƐĨŽƌ&zϮϬϭϯ
-2017 werederived from this guidance and conform to the 2011 Budget Control Act
͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽ
reduce Defense Department future expenditures by approximately $487 billion over the nextdecade or $259 billion over the next five years. Reflecting these reductions, the Departmentwill request funding of $525 billion for FY 2013, rising to $567 billion by FY 2017.Achieving these savings is hard, but manageable. It is
hard 
because we have to accept manychanges and reductions in areas that previously were sacrosanct. Collectively, the changesalign our investments to strategic priorities and budgetary goals, but individually, each onerequires a difficult adjustment. It is
manageable
because the resulting joint force, while smallerand leaner, will remain agile, flexible, ready, innovative, and technologically advanced. It willbe a force that is:Adaptable and capable of deterring aggression and providing a stabilizing presence,especially in the highest priority areas and missions in the Asia-Pacific region and theMiddle East, while still ensuring our ability to maintain our defense commitments toEurope and other allies and partnersReady, rapidly deployable, and expeditionary such that it can project power onarrivalCapable of defending the homeland and providing support to civil authoritiesPossessing cutting-edge capabilities that exploit our technological, joint, andnetworked advantageAble to reconstitute quickly or grow capabilities as neededAbove all, manned and led by the highest quality professionals
 
 Defense Budget Priorities and Choices 2
Historical ContextAfter every major conflict, the U.S. military has experienced significant budget draw downs.The new budget level for the Defense Department will rise from FY 2013 to FY 2017; however,total U.S. defense spending, including both base funding and war costs, will drop by about 22%from its peak in 2010, after accounting for inflation. By comparison, the 7 years following theVietnam and Cold War peak budgets saw a similar magnitude of decline on the order of 20 to25%.However, there are several significant differences between the circumstances we face todayand the post-Cold War drawdown. On the positive side, in contrast to the end of the Cold Warwhen the reductions came entirely out of the base defense budget, under the new plan thebase budget will roughly match or slightly exceed inflation after FY 2013. The cuts
ĨƌŽŵƚŽĚĂLJ͛Ɛ
overall defense spending levels are coming primarily from reduced war-related requirementsand are reflected in lower OCO budget levels. On the other hand, while the Cold War
ĚƌĂǁĚŽǁŶŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚĂƐŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛ƐŵĂũŽƌŵŝůŝƚĂƌLJƌŝǀĂůǁĂƐŝŶƐĞǀĞƌĞ
decline, today the U.S.military is still fighting in Afghanistan, countering violent extremism in other areas, andconfronting a variety of emerging security challenges. Moreover, the post-Cold War drawdownwas preceded by a decade-long defense build-up that emphasized procurement andmodernization, resulting in a smaller but mostly new, relatively unused, and technicallysuperior inventory of U.S. military equipment. By contrast, notwithstanding the large budgetincreases in the base defense budget over the past decade
 ʹ
including funding for weaponsdevelopment and acquisition
 ʹ
we still have significant gaps in modernization that will need tobe filled in coming years.In preparing this budget, we endeavored to avoid themistakes of previous draw downs that attempted tomaintain more force structure than the budget couldafford. Readiness suffered as a result, leading to ahollow force, which took years of investment toreverse. Our approach to readiness recognizes thatafter a decade of focus on counter-insurgencyoperations, the U.S. armed forces must re-hone othercapabilities needed for a wider spectrum of missions and adversaries.Protecting readiness also requires resetting damaged and worn equipment after years of war.Though this budget seeks to meet all of these compelling (and competing) demands, this is anarea that will require continued monitoring.
We will resist the temptation tosacrifice readiness in order to retain force structure, and will in fact rebuilreadiness in areas that, by necessity,were de-emphasized over the past decade
-
DoD Strategic Guidance, January 2012
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->