Restoring American Power
In January, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the white paper “Restoring American Power.” In it, he unexpectedly usurped the executive branch’s prerogative by making page after page of Defense Planning/Programming Guidance (DPG)–like recommendations, proposing “a general blueprint to begin rebuilding and reshaping our military.”
January was also the month during which the coming year’s fiscal budget was submitted by the executive branch to Congress. This is when Congress has the prerogative to examine, question, and propose modifications to the budget, prior to a final budget that is forwarded to the President to sign or not. This work is primarily accomplished by four major committees, though the first among these equals in this particular effort may be the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), which is now chaired by Senator McCain.
It is important that the three branches of government should stay in their lanes for good, legal, and historic reasons. The Congress does not write the DPG for the executive branch, and the executive branch does not edit the budget for the legislative branch.
The DPG is used to inform the entire Department of Defense (DoD) budgeting process. It reflects the President’s National Security Strategy, the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s National Military Strategy. It also reflects results of the Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as the annual Chairman’s Program Recommendations. The DPG provides guidance in the form of goals, priorities, and objectives, including fiscal constraints, for the development of each branch of the service.
While issuing “Restoring American Power” is procedurally unprecedented and presumptuous, Senator McCain’s familiarity with military issues is both broad and deep. Consequently, it is prudent for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which is responsible for the actual DPG, to examine the paper in depth.
In the case of the Navy, Senator McCain advocates building more carriers, surface ships, submarines, and aircraft; improving and acquiring more ordnance; revising the force structure; and pushing for developing more unmanned vehicles. The paper includes lots of specifics. Two examples suffice to give an appreciation of how far “Restoring American Power” goes.
Senator McCain supports the building of the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines as necessary to maintain the nuclear triad. Further, he recommends that the Navy undertake a new “high/low mix” in the aircraft carrier fleet: continue to build the large nuclear ships, but also build smaller, lower-cost, conventionally powered aircraft carriers.
What is not discussed is the fact that more carriers require more escort ships—a lot more escort ships. Unfortunately, as noted in the 2016 Ship Building Plan, “Since the CVN funding requirements are driven by the statutory requirement to maintain eleven CVNs, and accounting for . . . SSBNs . . . there would only be about half of the resources normally available to procure the Navy’s remaining capital ships.”
In short, there are not enough funds available to execute the current plan. As for conventional aircraft carriers, Senator McCain fails to make a convincing case for how these non-nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would increase the U.S. Navy’s capabilities.
The Defense Planning/Programming Guidance is based on what is, not on what should be. Even if the Budget Control Act of 2011 is repealed, as Senator McCain wishes, there is no explanation in his paper of how this massive buildup would be funded.
Furthermore, Senator McCain’s decision to intercede in the budget, even if well intentioned, is problematic. How do his ideas relate to the prerogatives or intentions of the new President and Secretary of Defense? With whom did he consult in the formulation of this paper? How did he expect this paper to influence a budget process that involves the exhaustive efforts of literally thousands of personnel, both uniformed and civilian, working year-round in order to produce? (The senator’s office was contacted for comment on these questions, but declined to engage.)
Ultimately, and sensibly, there is not much likelihood that Senator McCain’s suggestions will gain any traction.