Defense budget and quadrennial review sidestep critical issues.

• Author: Farrell, Lawrence P., Jr.
• Position: PRESIDENT'SPERSPECTIVE

* The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the fiscal year 2011 defense budget proposal seek to achieve some worthy goals, and echo Defense Secretary Robert Gates' main concern about the need to prevail in current conflicts.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Missing, however, is an acknowledgement of disconnects between program priorities and existing spending plans. A case in point is shipbuilding. There are also gaps between stated strategic priorities and actual programs, such as long-range strike. Finally, the documents are virtually silent on the dire fiscal straits the country finds itself in, huge federal deficits as far as the eye can see, and the consequences this will have on future defense budgets.

First, the budget. The 2011 budget of $708 billion--$549 billion in the base and $159 billion for overseas contingency operations--is a $17 billion increase over 2010. It amounts to 1.8 percent real growth, not quite the 2 percent sought by Gates.

The budget has four pillars: taking care of people, rebalancing the force, reforming how the Defense Department does business and supporting out troops in the field.

Those tenets all sound great, but there is a real possibility that the budget won't be enough. First is war costs. The 30,000-troop surge for Afghanistan already required a $33 billion supplemental for fiscal year 2010. Future war expenditures will be hard to predict. The administration included an annual $50 billion "placeholder" for war costs in the out-years, but that bill is likely to be much larger. There is continuing pressure on operations, maintenance and personnel costs, ground forces' equipment recapitalization, and projected increases in military health care expenses.

The Center for New American Security estimates that a baseline annual budget of $578 billion is required between 2011 and 2028 to sustain existing plans and programs. This budget doesn't quite get us there. Then there is the unpredictability of what Congress will do with the administration's proposal. Consider past congressional stances against ending C-17 aircraft production and terminating the F-35 alternative engine development.

Another wild card is the unsustainable nature of the federal budget and its impact on defense resources.

Next is the QDR. It tracks well with the 2011 budget, and is consistent with program terminations in the 2010 budget. The QDR has something for everyone, and most will find something to applaud. The QDR covers the waterfront of threats...