Defense budget: A tough balancing act.

• Author: Farrell, Lawrence P., Jr.
• Position: President's Perspective

In a climate of uncertainty surrounding a possible war with Iraq, there is much anticipation about what we may see in next year's defense budget.

In recent weeks, the Pentagon completed the 2004-2009 spending plan and soon will send it over to the White House Office of Management and Budget, for further review, before it goes to Capitol Hill in early February.

At the Pentagon, senior officials are quick to point our that the 2004 budget will be the first one that truly reflects the administration's strategy and philosophy on national defense. The $355 billion budget for fiscal year 2003, which saw a $48 billion increase from the previous year, was viewed by the Bush administration as part of a spending plan that it had inherited, rather than built fundamentally from the ground up.

The budget for fiscal year 2004, which begins next October 1, attempts to "meet today's threats while preparing for tomorrow's challenges," says Stephen A. Cambone, the Defense Department's director of program analysis and evaluation. At the direction of Secretary Rumsfeld, the PA&E office acquired greater authority in the budget-making process and in setting overall direction than it had under previous administrations.

Cambone says the new budget must achieve a proper balance among three key priorities: supporting military operations in the global war on terrorism, transforming the U.S. military into a more agile and more lethal force, and ensuring that the services have high-quality, combat-ready soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

Several guiding principles have shaped the 2004-2009 defense budget blueprint. Cambone outlined them, as follows:

* The budget will reflect the prominence of joint war-fighting capabilities in the areas of precision strike, command-and-control, communications, intelligence, space, information operations, logistics, training and techniques to counter asymmetric threats.

* The focus should be on the war-fighting capabilities, rather than the individual platforms or systems. This way of thinking makes particularly vulnerable those platforms that have been in development for a long time, are running over budget and have failed to convince PA&E that they contribute to the transformation of the force.

* The budget must balance risk in the context of new strategic directions. When it comes time to make tough decisions, areas such as homeland defense, joint operations, experimentation, quality of life and military housing will move to the...