Defense cuts could be expensive

Defense cuts could be expensive

Regarding George F. Will’s Sept. 19 column, “Specter of a sequester:” if anyone still thought raiding the Pentagon could fix our economy, Secretary Panetta has put that idea to rest. Panetta explained how congressional budget cuts would add another point to our unemployment rate, pushing it over 10 percent.

But these cuts would harm more than our economy. No one has explained how to pull $1 trillion out of our defenses and still fund the drones and reconnaissance satellites we need to track and stop al Qaida terrorists, or the advanced fighters needed to stop madmen dictators like Muammar Gadhafi without sending in ground troops. This equipment — much of it designed and built in the 1980s — has been worn to the breaking point. Two out of every five Air Force bombers are grounded due to maintenance. A request to send more drones to Libya was denied because there were none to spare from Afghanistan and Iraq.

While drawing down forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and reforming military benefits might eventually save money, those savings would be years away. Until then, the cuts would come out of investment and modernization, which have already been reduced to just 5 percent of the budget.

If Congress attempts to fix our fiscal problems by raiding the Pentagon investment budget, it would be making a terrible mistake. It’s too small to make a real dent in the deficit, and too essential to our national security to cut.

Rear Adm James J.Carey (Ret) USN, Alexandria, Va.

The writer is national chairman of the Flag and General Officers Network.