The latest such "quadrennial defense review" -- usually referred to in the Pentagon as a QDR -- began in April, with plans to complete work in time to shape the 2011 budget. This year's review is already degenerating into the kind of budget drill that led to criticism of the process in years past.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been in his job for two years and doesn't want to spend a lot of time rehashing what he already knows. So he pre-empted much of the QDR discussion with his program recommendations on April 6, and the only big item that remains to be decided is what force-sizing construct will prevail for the next four years.

To outsiders, this may sound like simple efficiency. If Gates knows what needs to be done, then why not just get on with it? Here's why: The process is ignoring the biggest single management challenge that Gates and his successors will face. That problem, bluntly stated, is that the all-volunteer force is becoming unaffordable.

Military personnel costs are out of control, and the Obama administration is making the problem worse by sticking with Bush administration plans to increase the size of the ground forces by 92,000 personnel.

Consider some trends: Stephen Daggett of the Congressional Research Service said the annual cost of an average uniformed member of the joint force has increased 45 percent after inflation since 1998, from $55,000 in constant 2009 dollars back then to $80,000 today.

That number does not include the cost of healthcare for the military and civilian defense workers, which has increased 144 percent since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001 to more than $40 billion per year now.

Despite these extraordinary increases in the cost of personnel, Congress continually legislates new benefits for war fighters and their dependents, including everything from free college tuition to supplemental Medicare payments.

Rapid increases in pay and benefits are already squeezing money for new weapons out of the Pentagon budget, but other consequences are more subtle. For instance, the Defense Department's operations and maintenance accounts are increasing about 2.5 percent annually after inflation in large part because of expenditures related to the cost of personnel.

As Daggett points out, most of the costs associated with healthcare for war fighters, retirees and military dependents are subsumed in the operations and maintenance accounts, as are the pay and benefits of civilian employees in the department.

Gates talks a great deal about the need for a balanced defense posture, but apparently this aspect of balance has eluded him. Not only does the current QDR look unlikely to address the burgeoning cost of military and civilian personnel, but it is grounded in the implausible assumption that defense spending will be stable for the next four years. How likely is that in a government that projects budget deficits of more than half a trillion dollars every year through 2019, and in which the chief executive is determined to implement the most ambitious domestic agenda since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society?

The answer is that it isn't likely at all, which means that regardless of what force-sizing construct the QDR comes up with, it isn't going to be sustainable because policymakers refuse to confront the biggest management challenge they face -- the rapidly rising cost of all the people hired to defend the United States.

(Loren B. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News