Could it be?

Anyone that has watched the Obama Administration ramble on (and on, and on) about how much it is doing to curb the recession and put America's economy back on track must have expected that, eventually, the President would get around to cutting the defense budget.

No surprise there, right?

What I am surprised at is that Obama seems to be letting Gates do the military budget himself (no small task, I'm sure) and he seems to have a free hand while doing it.

So, as detailed in this WSJ article, Gates is cutting the rate at which the defense budget was expected to grow... not actually cutting the budget itself. This is a real reduction, though, equal to nearly $150 billion over the next four years. He is reducing the number of general and flag officers by 50 and cutting the senior civilian advisory numbers by as much as 200 (bad news for Rummy, huh?). He isn't being forced to open BRAC hearings, he isn't being asked to cut current expenditures, and there is no obvious force reduction expectations as of now. As the article says, the Sec Def is being asked to explain just how many carriers and escorts the US needs to maintain current readiness levels, with the same question being asked for brigade-level Army figures, but this doesn't mean he has to put them to the axe as well... just to detail what is needed, both now and in the immediate future.

In an environment of unlimited government growth, slowing the pace at which the military grows is not a bad thing, as long as our capacity to defend ourselves and our interests isn't compromised. If we can complain about the size and cost of the Fed's domestic agenda, I don't think its wrong to consider the size and cost of the military, too. For example, fully 2% of what is spent in Afghanistan by the Fed goes to civilian contractors and advisers... with no actual accountability from those contractors on what is accomplished or spent. Reducing that cost, or having those contractors detail the expenses they are placing on the American taxpayer is NOT a bad thing... because if they CAN'T (or WON'T), then the money can go somewhere else in the budget... perhaps to increases in soldier's pay and benefits, or better equipment, etc.

Perhaps Gates will be the model for the other Cabinet-level departments... hopefully, but not likely.