Skip to footer

Pentagon budget: 4 ways White House wants to change the military

When top Pentagon officials came to Capitol Hill Wednesday with their 2015 budget in hand, they offered some key clues about what they expect the future US military to look like. The budget “fully reflects the historic transition taking place as America winds down the longest war in its history,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers Wednesday, adding that it is “repositioning the military for new strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future.” 

Here are the top four things the new Defense budget reveals about the White House’s priorities for the US military.

1. No more land wars

Mohammad Ismail/Reuters/File
A US soldier stands at the site of a suicide car bomb attack in Kabul in February 10.

  • By Anna Mulrine Staff writer

The rise of a “new center of power” throughout the globe means “a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and, in some instances, more threatening to the United States," Secretary Hagel said.

However, he stresses that this does not mean that the Department of Defense sees any more ground wars in its future, particularly as it wraps up America’s longest war in Afghanistan. 

“We are no longer sizing the military to conduct long and large stability operations,” he added, in a briefing with Pentagon reporters. 

But “no more land wars” is a mantra that the military has mistakenly trotted out before, most notably after World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, some critics warn. The latest round of cuts mean that “we won’t be ready for the next” war, says Rep. Buck McKeon (R) of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. After World War II, “We took the largest, strongest Army and Navy and we totally destroyed it,” he warns. “We don’t think we’re setting ourselves up for the same thing?”

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.