Share This Page

Cuts would make using troops 'immoral,' Senate told

| Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2013, 7:39 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Pending automatic spending cuts have put the armed forces on a path to being so unprepared for combat that it would be “immoral” to use them, the Defense Department's top leaders told lawmakers on Tuesday in their most dire warning yet of how looming budget reductions could undercut military readiness.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in response to a question during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that neither he nor any of the four-star officers in charge of the military services have considered resigning to protest the billions in dollars in cuts that will begin on March 1 unless Congress acts to stop them.

“But I will tell you personally, if ever the force is so degraded and so unready, and then we're asked to use it, it would be immoral to use the force unless it's well-trained, well-led and well-equipped,” Dempsey said.

“Are we on the path to creating that dilemma?” asked Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

“We are on that path,” Dempsey said.

The uniformed leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps agreed with Dempsey's assessment.

The potential for the automatic cuts, called a sequester, to kick in on March 1 is the result of Congress' failure to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade. The Pentagon faces a $46 billion budget reduction in the seven months starting in March and ending in September, and additional cuts would come in later years as long as the sequester remains in effect. The automatic cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction in Defense spending over the next 10 years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.

Further complicating the military's fiscal picture is the lack of a budget for this fiscal year. Congress hasn't approved one. Lawmakers have instead been passing bills called continuing resolutions, which keep spending levels at the same rate as the year before. That means the Pentagon is operating on less money than planned, and that compounds the problem, Defense officials said. A freeze on hiring is in place, and the military has cut back on maintenance at bases and facilities, they said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week that the United States is at risk of becoming a second-rate military power if the sequester isn't prevented. If the reductions are allowed to stand, Panetta said he would have to throw the country's national defense strategy “out the window.”

Dempsey, the service chiefs and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter added greater detail during the hearing.

Dempsey said “military readiness is in jeopardy due to the convergence of unprecedented budget factors.” If the situation isn't fixed, he said, the armed forces “will have much less of everything and therefore be able to provide fewer options to our nation's leaders.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., asked Dempsey to rate the dangers of sequestration on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the most severe.

“From where I sit today, it sure feels like a 10,” Dempsey said. None of the other witnesses disagreed.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described the military's financial situation as “kind of an Orwellian experience” because it's occurring when North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon, Iran remains a threat in the Persian Gulf region, and Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia all are in a state of unrest.

“We are probably in a more unsettled period since the end of the Cold War that certainly I have ever seen,” McCain said. No one at the witness table disputed McCain's assessment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.