Inspired Presidential Leadership Needed to Set Defense Priorities.

• Author: Skibbie, Larry
• Position: Brief Article

Recently, I was invited to appear on national television to comment on the state of the U.S. defense industrial base. The interviewer asked several questions concerning NDIA's position on defense spending. But then, he specifically asked me to say whether the defense community would be better off with a Republican administration. Speaking for a non-partisan organization, I was not about to endorse a political party, so I think I escaped unscathed on that issue. However, the questions posed during the Fox News broadcast generally sought my opinion on what will happen as a result of the election.

My response was that whichever party wins in November will almost certainly be forced to come to grips with re-capitalizing our military forces.

By re-capitalizing, I mean replacing the worn-out equipment that has continued to be over-used with repetitive deployments to Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, and many other locations. Most of this equipment, by the way, was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, and procured during the 1980s defense buildup.

The procurement holiday that has been experienced during the past 15 years has resulted in what Undersecretary of Defense Jacques S. Gansler calls "the death spiral," and that is a very descriptive term.

Older equipment needs more maintenance; more maintenance takes money from procurement, and because procurement accounts have less money, new equipment cannot be bought--and the equipment continues to age, requiring yet more maintenance.

There are compelling reasons why the next president must address the need for modernized equipment. As I mentioned previously, we have been cutting back on equipment--or limping along with very low levels of procurement--for almost 15 years now. Our investment in new equipment has decreased by some 70 percent. Of course, those savings are the principal source of the peace dividend--a trillion dollars saved. Defense cutbacks produced those savings, primarily from reducing procurement accounts, because that is the only source of funds that can be "safely" cut without hampering near-term force readiness.

My TV inquisitors further opined that, even though it has been a long time since we bought significant levels of equipment, and even though the current equipment is in bad shape, the country just isn't interested.

Unfortunately, they are right...