Gates: Time to look at military pay, retirement, TRICARE premiums Published May 25, 2011 By Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in a speech Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute, that he had "launched a comprehensive review last week to ensure that future spending decisions are focused on priorities, strategy and risks, and are not simply a math and accounting exercise." The analysis, Gates said, "will entail going places that have been avoided by politicians in the past." Then he got down to specifics. On the table, he announced, are possible pay cuts and other changes to retirement and health care. He mentioned: · Re-examining military compensation levels (pay) in light of the fact that - apart from the U.S. Army during the worst years of Iraq - all the services have consistently exceeded their recruiting and retention goals; · It could mean taking a look at the rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to retirement, pay and pensions left over from the last century. A "more tiered and targeted system - one that weights compensation towards the most high demand and dangerous specialties," he said, "could bring down costs while attracting and retaining the high quality personnel we need; and · It will require doing something about spiraling health care costs - and in particular the health insurance benefit for working age retirees whose fees are one-tenth those of federal civil servants, and have not been raised since 1995. Gates said, "It is no secret that the United States faces a serious fiscal predicament that could turn into a crisis - of credit, of confidence, of our position in the world - if not addressed soon." Following an announcement by President Obama on April 13 which announced his framework for tackling these challenges, he set a goal of holding the growth in base national security spending slightly below inflation for the next 12 years, which would save about $400 billion, the preponderance of which would come from the Department of Defense. "For starters," Gates noted, "I have long believed - and I still do - that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes. However, as matter of simple arithmetic and political reality, the Department of Defense must be at least part of the solution. "We live in the real world," Gates went on. "Absent a catastrophic international conflict or new existential threat, we are not likely to return to Cold War levels of defense expenditures, at least as a share of national wealth anytime soon. Nor do I believe we need to. The secretary said he "for the past two years (has) sought to prepare our defense institutions - accustomed to the post 9/11 decade's worth of 'no questions asked' funding requests - for the inevitable flattening and eventual decrease of the defense budget. This entailed creating as much "head room" as possible under the existing defense top line to protect the size and fighting strength - the core capabilities - of the U.S. military." Gates admitted the services' current inventory is getting, "old and worn down from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some equipment can be re-furbished with life-extension programs, but there is no getting around the fact that others must be replaced. Most of these Reagan-era platforms are still best in class relative to the rest of the world, so with the important exception of air superiority fighters and other high-end systems, pursuing costly, leap-ahead improvements in technology and capability is not necessarily required. "Our guiding principle going forward must be to develop technology and field weapons that are affordable, versatile, and relevant to the most likely and lethal threats in the decades to come, not just more expensive and exotic versions of what we had in the past." Gates listed what he sees as priorities for spending: "What remains are much-needed capabilities - relating to air superiority and mobility, long-range strike, nuclear deterrence, maritime access, space and cyber warfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance - that our nation's civilian and military leadership deem absolutely critical," he said. His examples: · We must build a new tanker. The ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots flying them; · We must field a next generation strike fighter - the F-35 - and at a cost that permits large enough numbers to replace the current fighter inventory and maintain a healthy margin of superiority over the Russians and Chinese; · We must recapitalize the ground forces - the Army and Marines - whose combat vehicles and helicopters are worn down after a decade of war; and "Unless our country's political leadership envisions a dramatically diminished global security role for the United States," Gates added, "It is vitally important to protect the military modernization accounts - in absolute terms, and as a share of the defense budget. "But, above all, if we are to avoid a hollowing effect, this process will need to address force structure - the military's fighting formations such as Army brigades, Marine expeditionary units, Air Force wings, Navy ships and supporting aviation assets. "The overarching goal will be to preserve a U.S. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities even if fiscal pressure requires reductions in that force's size. I've said repeatedly that I'd rather have a smaller, superbly capable military then a larger, hollow, less capable one. However, we need to be honest with the president, with the congress, with the American people, indeed with ourselves, about what those consequences are: That a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things. Before wrapping up his speech, Gates commented, "While I have spent a good deal of time on programmatic particulars, the tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people - accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades - want their country to play in the world. "Since I entered government 45 years ago, I've shifted my views and changed my mind on a good many things as circumstances, new information, or logic dictated. But I have yet to see evidence that would dissuade me from this fundamental belief: that America does have a special position and set of responsibilities on this planet. He concluded, "I share Winston Churchill's belief that 'the price of greatness is responsibility...[and] the people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility.' This status provides enormous benefits - for allies, partners, and others abroad to be sure, but in the final analysis the greatest beneficiaries are the American people, in terms of our security, our prosperity, and our freedom."