Hagel and Dempsey remind us that security, options and leadership cost money

The assertion that Congress is dragging its feet on strategic funding—particularly with respect to defense—is not a political talking point. On Friday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel argued that funding allocated for combatting the ISIS threat is insufficient.

Unfortunately, with the passage of another piecemeal continuing resolution, legislators appear to be stuck in an ad hoc model of government funding. For all the criticism of President Obama’s supposed lack of strategy, many in Congress appear to be unable or unwilling to accept that they simply must fund the government’s most critical mission to provide for the common defense, whether the necessary funding must be raised as revenue, sold as debt, or reallocated from other budget areas. To not do so is in fact an abdication of looking forward at the bigger picture—also known as strategy.

{mosads}The president is adapting to unexpected crises, even as he must lead ongoing efforts to modernize our military forces, maintain global readiness, and prepare for any military or humanitarian missions in the Pacific. The American people have demanded it, and he has done his job as chief executive. To accomplish these goals, the federal government requires stable capital plans for success just like any good business. Congress must now do its part.

On the other hand, Congress has consistently left many national security and defense duties unfulfilled through inaction and failure to compromise. Many 9/11 Commission recommendations remain ignored, and even more egregiously, our legislators have yet to repair at least a portion of the Budget Control Act and fully fund the U.S. Department of Defense in a way that allows for sustainable program projections within the executive corridors of the Pentagon and our armed services.  

Earlier this month, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated that the Pentagon needs up to $300 billion more than Congress has approved over the next five years to implement even an outdated strategy that didn’t take ISIS or Russian adventurism into account. To make that clearer, even before the crises in Ukraine and Iraq unfolded, Congress had shortchanged funding for the President’s plans for defense and intelligence to the tune of billions of dollars.

Now that we have crises to tackle, troops may be sent to the front lines underpaid, carrying subpar weapons, and using technology that lags behind even the private sector. It is simply impossible to cut such a serious amount of funding without affecting our nation’s global readiness—never mind the jobs lost in scientific research or the diminished global footprint where the stars and stripes fly as a symbol of hope around the world.

Of course military leaders will do all they can to mitigate the damage trough streamlining and finding efficiencies. In order to keep the force alive, they will preserve only those programs that keep future troops trained, fielded and equipped at the bare minimum. The E-Ring will fight valiantly to protect our armed forces and preserve strategic options, but under now-outdated sequester scenario planning America will inevitably be more dependent upon frequently unreliable alliances and our self-determination in international affairs will recede.

But all this would be much easier if Congress would stop doing the damage in the first place. Strategy change is inevitable without funding, and those members of Congress who put their ideology before common sense might not like the strategic options their actions have unnecessarily forced upon the executive branch. All candidates for Congress this fall should be pressured to publicly commit to a reversal of this crippling of the nation’s future defense.

Borene is a member of the Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. A former U.S. Marine and Pentagon lawyer, he is currently adjunct faculty at American University in Washington, DC.