Pentagon budget: top 3 winners and losers

As the Pentagon rolled out its budget preview Thursday, it stressed the tough work involved in cutting $487 billion over the next decade. But in Pentagon parlance, the word “cut” is a relative term. While the Defense Department’s base budget initially decreases from $553 billion this year to $525 billion in fiscal year 2013, it is still more than its $480 billion base budget in 2008, when US troops were in the midst of two wars. The budget will then rebound steadily to $567 billion in fiscal year 2017. 

With this in mind, here are the top three winners and losers:

Winner No. 1: the Navy

US Navy/AP/File
Some budget hawks wanted the Pentagon to ditch one of its 11 aircraft carriers. No thank you, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon has made no secret of its plan to shift its attention toward the Pacific (read China) in the years to come. This is a boon for the US Navy, whose aircraft carriers and submarines will be key in any US military maneuvering that involves China, senior military officials stress. It is a change of fortune for a service branch that often felt marginalized amid the decade’s two large counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, despite some robust calls to reduce just one of the 11 aircraft carriers in the Navy’s fleet, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday that this would not be happening. He cited the need for a Navy “that maintains forward presence and is able to penetrate enemy defenses.”

What’s more, the Pentagon will be putting money into developing, for example, “a new afloat forward staging base” and “a design that will allow new Virginia-class submarines to be modified to carry more cruise missiles.”

The Pentagon is also currently working to develop an “undersea conventional prompt global strike option” – essentially arming submarine-based missiles with conventional warheads – despite a Bush administration decision to scrap it amid concerns that they would be mistaken for nuclear missile strikes.

“Modernizing our submarine fleet will be critical to our efforts to maintain maritime access in these vital regions of the world,” Mr. Panetta said. One senior military official pointed to the Navy’s “particularly useful role” in the seas around China, “for the things we want to do in the future.”

1 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.