News

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, attributed the problem to a disconnect between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and OMB. "The Navy knew there were industrial base concerns with only buying one LCS in FY-18, but was told by OSD not to address modernization in this budget and to focus on readiness," Clark, a former Navy official, told Inside Defense in an email. "Therefore, the Navy stayed with the shipbuilding plan that was published in the FY-17 budget, which had one LCS in FY-18." But the decision created problems for the Trump administration, which does not want shipyards laying off workers during a promised naval buildup, Clark wrote. "OMB therefore told OSD and the Navy to tell Congress that DOD would reevaluate the LCS number for FY-18 to ensure the LCS shipyards remain viable for the planned FY-20 frigate competition," he wrote. "This was something the Navy intended to do anyway, and OSD and OMB should have simply addressed it upfront in the budget documents and briefs."

"These airfield upgrades are sensible and necessary investments for our reassurance and deterrence efforts in Europe," says Kate Blakeley, a research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The improvements "will have a real impact on the ability of U.S. and allied forces to operate at these bases, especially in contingency operations."

Thursday's NATO Summit provides an opportunity for the alliance to get tough on its putative Turkish ally. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's destabilizing policies in Europe and the Middle East have made it appear less an ally and more a Russian Trojan horse. To keep Turkey on track, NATO has been appeasing Erdogan, to no avail. Turkey's recent "Eurasianist turn" and Erdogan's now-constitutionalized one-man rule have only complicated the relationship. It is time for NATO to remind Erdogan that he needs the alliance just as much as NATO needs Turkey.

“It seems clear that despite the President’s call in his Philadelphia speech in September for a repeal of the Budget Control Act [which created the sequester] and a big buildup of the military he has not budgeted the resources to accomplish this,” says former ambassador Eric Edelman, a member of the National Defense Panel that recommended in 2014 a substantial buildup. “With these numbers he won’t be able to get a 350-ship Navy, a larger Army, or most of the other things that he promised the American people. There seems to be a disconnect between the rhetoric of ‘peace through strength’ and doing what is necessary from a budgetary perspective to build that strength.” He added, “Those of us who have been concerned about the declining state of the nation’s defenses will have to rely on the Congress to make sure that the gap between America’s commitments and its capabilities doesn’t grow greater on this President’s watch.”

However, Bryan Clark, a senior fellow who focuses on naval issues at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said the funding doesn’t do enough to help with modernization. It will “basically allow the Marines to operate at the readiness they have been over the last few years,” he told National Defense. “It addresses some of the readiness shortfalls … but what is doesn’t do is really help them with their modernization problems.”

“$18.5 billion just doesn’t go that far, particularly if you are going to take real action to address some of the force structure and readiness issues that we’ve been struggling with for the past several years,” Katherine Blakeley, a research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said. “You can burn though $18.5 billion, which I don’t think we’re necessarily going to get, very rapidly.”