David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force transformation and resources, said the Pentagon had identified gaps in its capabilities and had told the services to fill them, while assuming no overall budget growth.

"It's now up to the components to figure out how best to make real those new capabilities and capacities and to find offsets within an assumption of zero real growth," Ochmanek told a group of defense reporters...

The Obama administration has asked Congress for $663.8 billion for the Pentagon for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, including $130 billion in war funding, mainly for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Gates recently discussed the cancellation of the CSAR-X rescue helicopter program with a group of Air Force officers.

“Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles behind enemy lines by itself to rescue somebody didn’t seem like a realistic op-con,” he said.

If it wasn’t realistic for a helicopter to go alone 250 miles behind enemy lines then US Special Operations Command would have shutdown years ago. Since Vietnam, both special operations and rescue helicopter crews have perfected the art of flying alone and unafraid into enemy territory. Even if it was unrealistic, combat rescue helicopters seldom go alone, but instead operate as part of a combat search and rescue task force, which may include platforms such as unmanned systems, A-10s, and AC-130s.

The secretary also stated the Defense Department would continue to look to improve CSAR, but as a joint operation.  

CSAR, however, is already a joint operation. Because Air Force CSAR assets are low density and high demand they must lean heavily on other services for support. It’s not uncommon for Air Forced HH-60Gs to fight in conjunction with Army Apaches or Marine Corp Cobras or F/A-18s. This joint emphasis is one reason the other services often choose Air Force assets as their first choice for personnel recovery.  If the other services wanted a bigger piece of CSAR it would have happened before now.

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps pour billions into aviation programs they deem important, and vigorously engage in political turf battles to protect them.  The other services have far more helicopters than the Air Force and each, to some extent, dabble in personnel recovery. If they determined CSAR was critical to their operations they could have easily invested more resources and made a serious push to take CSAR from the Air Force. Instead, they’ve been willing to let the Air Force do the heavy lifting for personnel recovery for the same fundamental reason the Secretary of Defense is willing to axe it.

CSAR doesn’t put bombs on target, conquer enemy territory or sink enemy ships. It doesn’t directly add to combat capability, but is an insurance policy for those who do. The Air Force has been willing to foot this expensive bill since Vietnam and the other services have been more than willing to let them do it. Times are tough and the Pentagon is looking for ways to save money, lowering this insurance coverage is one way to do it.

If the rest of the military wasn’t willing to spend the money to bring their assets up to full CSAR capability in the good times, why would they allocate precious resources in the hard times? Just calling CSAR “a joint mission” won’t guarantee one more dime for this most critical of missions.

This article comes from today's Newsweek, its the Periscope column by John Barry and Evan Thomas. I think its a new insight into defense spending politics and well written.

The Few, The Proud, The Savvy

By John Barry and Evan Thomas

In his farewell address in January 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, the cozy relationship between the Pentagon, Congress and defense contractors. In April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposes to do something significant about it. He wants Congress to cut big-ticket items from all the major services: the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the Army's family of Future Combat Systems and the Navy's DDG 1000 destroyer.

One service was notably spared the budget ax. The how and why suggests that Gates can be politically cagey as well as bold. The Marines are the smallest, cheapest and, arguably, the bravest of them all —"The Few, the Proud, the Marines" is not just a recruiting gimmick. The Marines were quicker than the Army to think about how to fight nasty, small wars—and do it without spending vast sums of money. But the Marines are a proud service, and they worry about becoming too much like the Army. They want to preserve their historic mission of landing on foreign shores in small boats.

The Marines last major amphibious operation was in 1950, a highly successful maneuver at Inchon in Korea. Since then, landing troops by sea (which, historically, has been an often-bloody gambit—think of Gallipoli and Tarawa) has become an increasingly dodgy proposition. Today, all but the poorest countries are likely to possess radar, mines and ship-killing missiles. Even the take-that-hill ethos of the Marines recoils at sailing into slaughter.

For almost 40 years, the Marines' landing craft has been the AAV, the Amphibious Assault Vehicle. Carrying 25 men and three crew, it's meant to be launched two miles off shore and it pokes along at 8mph—a sitting duck at sea. It can move on land, but the old, thinly armored vehicles were taken out of combat in Iraq when IEDs turned them into death traps.

The Marines are working on a new landing craft called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. It would launch from 25 miles out ("over the horizon") and move at 25mph. Heavily armored (38 tons versus the AAV's 23 tons) it requires a turbojet engine, which makes it look like "a tank on water skis," according to its critics. And there are many critics. The EFV has been in development for 14 years and its cost has tripled to $23 million each. With ship-killing missiles getting ever deadlier, the EFV would seem to be a candidate for cancellation by a pennywise SecDef.

But Gates kept it in the budget he proposed last week. Politics had nothing to do with it, insists spokesman Geoff Morrell. Rather, as Gates explained, he wants to take up the whole issue of the amphibious mission in the coming year when the Pentagon engages in a long-term review of defense priorities.

There is another good reason to kick the issue down the road. The Marines are famous for their political savvy. The Army wheezily jokes that while an Army squad commonly has 12 men, a Marine squad has 13—the extra is a PR officer. Trying to kill a favorite Marine Corps weapons system can be an exercise in futility. During the Bush 41 administration, then–Defense secretary Dick Cheney tried no less than four times to eliminate funding for the V-22 Osprey, which flies today. The Marines have close ties on Capitol Hill—none better than Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a combat-decorated 37-year veteran of the U.S. Marines. Last week, Murtha praised Gates's budget. As they say in the Corps, Semper Fi.

Gates made his statement to Congress yesterday on his plan for defense spending with few surprises. Let’s revisit my predictions:

1. Some defense spending will remain strong, even as the budget shrinks. This will only be for certain mature programs and only in key democratic districts. 

Defense spending will increase by 4% in real dollars. That’s about par with inflation (depending on whose inflation numbers one uses), though smaller than the service chiefs asked for.

The F-35 program will increase. The tanker program survives. The Navy can keep its 11-carrier fleet and buy more F/A-18s. Its new destroy will be scaled back, not cut, and it can resume building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Army’s future combat system will also be scaled back. The Marines will lose the new presidential helicopter program but, with the Army, will boost force strength. Special operations and intelligence assets also get a big boost.

Now its congresses turn. In the end they have the final say. I think they will go along with most (but not all) of Gates’ recommendations due to tremendous pressure from the White House. Any changes will be to align spending and programs with districts of the democratic majority. We will know for sure by fall of this year.

2. 'Big programs, small programs, nothing will be sacred. Expect early retirement for various weapon systems. This will not impact democratic districts. Don’t hold your breath on a new rescue helicopter unless the HH-47 wins. Parts of it are made in Murtha’s state of PA.

Murtha was out with knee surgery and the entire Air Force rescue helicopter went down in flames. In fact, only the Air Force took major force-wide hits. Only its tanker program made it out unscathed (the F-35 is a joint program with Navy, Marines and U.K.). The F-22 was terminated – no more will be built. The C-17 was terminated – no more will be built. Missile defense – gutted. The new bomber – scrapped. New transformational satellite program – scrapped. Over 200 front line fighters – retired. It was another bad day for the Air Force.

3. Rep. Barney Frank’s comment about a 25% cut in overall defense spending will come true, but not in the baseline budget. Expect the wartime supplemental spending to plummet as troops come home from Iraq.

Supplemental spending debate doesn’t begin in earnest until later this spring…more to follow here.

What do I think about all these changes Sec. Gates is making? I’m still digesting his proposals, but I don’t think he had much choice. I’ll discuss this in more detail later.

With that, I think it’s a good time to review some of the predictions I made since last fall:

3. Rep. Barney Frank’s comment about a 25% cut in overall defense spending will come true, but not in the baseline budget. Expect the wartime supplemental spending to plummet as troops come home from Iraq.

Some new predictions:

1. Obama’s cuts will hurt defense companies. Watch for Congress to follow with a nationalization plan. Many companies will go willingly.

2. Keep you eye out for more cuts to personnel programs. Obama’s attempt to cut VA funding by shifting $500 million in service-related medical costs to private insurance took me by surprise. I expected him to increase personnel benefits for military to lure away DoD voters from the Republicans. Therefore, it may be the Dems have written off military as permanently political adversaries.

3. Once congress gets a hold of the budget some pork will be added back in, but the administration must get its defense cuts in during the next two years. After that, the election cycle will begin anew and he’ll have to move back to the center to get reelected. He'll be counting America’s short memories.

We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

With that, I think it’s a good time to review some of the predictions I made since last fall:

3. Rep. Barney Frank’s comment about a 25% cut in overall defense spending will come true, but not in the baseline budget. Expect the wartime supplemental spending to plummet as troops come home from Iraq.

Some new predictions:

1. Obama’s cuts will hurt defense companies. Watch for Congress to follow with a nationalization plan. Many companies will go willingly.

2. Keep you eye out for more cuts to personnel programs. Obama’s attempt to cut VA funding by shifting $500 million in service-related medical costs to private insurance took me by surprise. I expected him to increase personnel benefits for military to lure away DoD voters from the Republicans. Therefore, it may be the Dems have written off military as permanently political adversaries.

3. Once congress gets a hold of the budget some pork will be added back in, but the administration must get its defense cuts in during the next two years. After that, the election cycle will begin anew and he’ll have to move back to the center to get reelected. He'll be counting America’s short memories.

We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

Years ago, I was lucky enough to fly an air force helicopter to the Borger Texas Air Show. A small Panhandle ranching and oil town near Amarillo, Borger represents the best of American patriotism and hospitality. 

Under the hot, dusty summer sun the good people of Borger gathered around our HH-60G Pavehawk. They shook our hands, asked questions, and proudly told us about their sons and daughters serving in the military. As the day wore on and the show drew to a close, the crew and I prepared the helicopter for departure. That’s when a grizzled old-timer, a working man in dirty steel-toed boots and worn overalls, approached through the thinning crowd. Holding his hand was a wide-eyed little boy, no more than six.

“Sir,” the old man asked softly, “Would it be alright if my grandson sits in your helicopter?”

I helped the boy, his eyes beaming, into the pilot’s seat. “It’s not my helicopter, sir,” I replied to the old man, “You helped pay for it.”

This tax season it’s important to remind ourselves the defense of the nation is paid for by its hardworking citizens. Freedom isn’t free, in fact last year it cost our nation over $512 billion dollars in the baseline defense budget alone. While Americans get a fantastic return on their money, its still important for servicemen and women to remember it’s not the military’s money, nor the government’s money – it’s the people’s money, entrusted to their volunteer warriors to defend them and our way of life.

A close friend of mine, a veteran who owns a very successful software development firm, once confided to me how much his small business paid in taxes. The amount was stunning. It’s hard to understand how small businesses survive under such crushing tax burdens. My friend, and millions like him, not only pay for the military’s bombs and bullets, but paychecks, retirements, fuel, dependent medical costs, recreation centers, and absolutely everything else in the massive Defense Department and Veterans Administration. He grumbles about his taxes, but makes it clear he supports every dime spent on the military. He’s not alone.

The military is one of America’s must trusted institutions. Many dislike the federal government, but revere the armed forces.  Since Vietnam the military has fought hard to earn it’s cherished place in the hearts of the American people. This respect must be earned every day, not only in how we conduct ourselves on the battlefield, but how we act as stewards of the public’s money.

In 1953 President Eisenhower said this about defense spending, “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”  Eisenhower knew better than anyone the need for strong defense, but clearly understood military spending takes resources from the part of the economy which creates real wealth. Every dollar the Pentagon spends is a dollar my friend can’t use to hire someone, or a dollar that old oil worker in Borger Texas can’t spend on his grandson. 

Times are tough and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet as they square their tax accounts with Uncle Sam before April 15th. They give the military those hard earned dollars willingly, with both pride and patriotism. They only ask the military spend it wisely and be good stewards of the resources bestowed upon them. So the next time a grateful citizen thanks you for your service, thank them for their support.

By Tom Infield, Inquirer Staff Writer

CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. - World War I took place so long ago - in a lost world of cavalry horses and biplanes - that it's a little startling to meet Frank Buckles in the flesh.

The last known U.S. military veteran of World War I, Buckles turns 108 today.

On Tuesday, as a winter storm moved in from the west, he sat in a nice blue blazer in a warm corner of his day room, surrounded by history books. Outside, white wisps blew across the pale stubble on the 330-acre cattle farm where he settled quietly in 1954 after what already had been a life's worth of adventure in not one but two wars and as a commercial seafarer. Beyond lay the river town of Harpers Ferry and the Civil War battlefield at Antietam.

Buckles said he had always known he would grow quite old. His father lived to be 97. He had a sister who was 104. Other relatives on his mother's side lived to be 100.

The national World War I veterans group, of which he is the commander and sole member, used to publish a newsletter. Each issue counted down the number of old doughboys still around. As the number got smaller and smaller, "I realized I'd be one of the last," he said, "but I never thought I'd be the last."

He grinned slowly and added, "Of course, if it has to be somebody, it might as well be me."

On Nov. 11, the 90th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs recognized Buckles as "our last living link" to that war. Buckles met President George W. Bush at the White House last year and was feted at the Pentagon.

He seems to have enjoyed the attention, but he isn't eager to talk about the sadness and melancholy that must come with being the last of 4,734,991 American military personnel during the war, in 1917 and 1918.

"Being the last is sort of a negative thing because it means all your buddies have gone before you, so he doesn't dwell on that," said Muriel Sue Kerr of Mount Vernon, Va., the longtime director of Buckles' veterans group and the granddaughter of a World War I veteran.

Until he was in his 70s, Buckles each month smoked a pound of pipe tobacco and a box of cigars that he ordered from a shop in San Francisco.

He drove a car and a farm tractor until he was 102.

He's still in good health - "for a man my age," as he put it. A couple of years ago, his only child, Susannah, 53, moved in with him. His son-in-law built two new rooms on the ground floor of his 250-year-old house so he doesn't have to climb stairs anymore.

As he sat in his favorite chair, his shaggy hair combed across his scalp, an eagle-head cane leaning against the wall, Buckles had to concentrate hard to hear the questions in an interview. His answers came with pauses to catch his breath.

He enjoyed telling the old, old stories - the funny ones, mostly. Like the time he tried to teach his father how to drive a Model T Ford on the Oklahoma farm where he grew up. On the way back to the house after a spin, his father forgot himself and yelled, "Whoa!" The car crashed through the gate.

If anyone could be said to embody the history of America, Buckles might be it.

He can remember talking to his grandmother, born in 1817. His grandmother, in turn, could remember talking to her grandfather, who had been in the Revolutionary War. The first Buckles came from England to Philadelphia in 1702 and married into a Quaker family in Bucks County. The clan moved to the upper Potomac River region in 1732, the year of George Washington's birth.

Frank Woodruff Buckles was born Feb. 1, 1901. When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, he was 13. He was still just 16 in 1917 when the United States entered the war against Germany, on the side of Britain and France.

He tried to join the Marines, but was rejected as too young. He tried the Navy, then the Army. He lied that he was unable to produce his birth certificate, and the Army let him in.

In December 1917, he sailed for Europe aboard the ocean liner Carpathia, converted into a troop ship. The Carpathia had rescued survivors of the Titanic 5 1/2 years earlier.

After landing in England, Buckles worked as a military driver. He had to finagle his way to France. He never saw combat - "not close," he said - but he was at least in the war theater. He was a corporal when he got home.

Having seen Paris, he couldn't be kept down on the farm. He moved to New York City, where he worked for a bank. In another brush with history, he attended the Sunday Bible class at Fifth Avenue Baptist Church led by John D. Rockefeller Jr., heir to the Standard Oil fortune.

Banking was boring for him, so he decided to go to sea. He spent the 1920s and '30s sailing three oceans as a ship's officer. He hit ports up and down both coasts of South America, and visited the town of Vilcabamba in Ecuador's "valley of longevity," where people were said to live to be 110 or even 115. "I saw that I could live to be 100," he said.

In 1940, he boarded a ship bound from San Francisco to the Philippines. He was in Manila when the Japanese attacked there a few hours after the raid on Pearl Harbor. When the Japanese invaded, he was among Western civilians taken prisoner.

He was held for 3 1/2 years at the Santo Tomas and Los Baños internment camps. He wouldn't talk much about that time, except to say, "There was no mercy as far as the Japanese were concerned." He once saw three men, British and Australian, nearly beaten to death.

Food became scarce as the Japanese began to lose the war. At Los Baños, on the campus of an agricultural university, the prisoners found a scale. Buckles discovered that he had lost almost a third of his 140 pounds. "When I got down to 100 pounds," he said, "I quit weighing."

Buckles still has the chipped metal cup from which he ate his beans and rice.

On Feb. 23, 1945, six months before the end of World War II, U.S. and Philippine forces liberated the Los Baños camp.

Buckles, who had led daily fitness exercises in the camp, was almost the only one of 2,100 survivors who didn't go directly to a hospital when they landed back in San Francisco, he said. Instead, he checked into a hotel.

He discovered that while he had been gone, his paychecks from his shipping company had been piling up at the Crocker Bank.

"I was starving, but I had money in the bank," he said.

"The average man who got paid off, I can imagine what he did," he said. "He bought a new automobile or used that money right off."

But Buckles let the money ride. He kept it invested with the bank. Come a January day nine years later - "it was snowing like this," he said - he visited the Charles Town farm and was able to buy it.

Until not long ago, he said, few people in the area knew he was a World War I veteran. He had no reason to mention it.

But as veterans dwindled to a few, he started to attract interest from journalists, history buffs and autograph-seekers. He now even has a Web site, www.frankbuckles.org.

In September 2006, portrait photographer David DeJonge of Grand Rapids, Mich., set out to photograph all of the remaining World War I veterans. He had 15 names on his list. By the time he got started, four men had died. Others faded away as his work progressed.

Last March, nine DeJonge portraits, including one of Buckles, were hung in a corridor of the Pentagon.

With Buckles beside him, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said: "The First World War is not well understood or remembered in the United States. There is no big memorial on the National Mall. Hollywood has not turned its gaze in this direction for decades. Yet few events have so markedly shaped the world we live in."

Having experienced two wars up close, Buckles watched from afar as the United States fought in Korea and Vietnam.

He now watches as his country makes war in Iraq and Afghanistan - mystifying realms of satellite-guided bombs and unmanned aerial vehicles that not even Jules Verne or H.G. Wells could have conjured in the books Buckles read as a boy.

Speaking of Iraq, he commented: "We shouldn't have got into that damned war."

But he hastened to add that his opinion didn't matter.

"Why do I get the authority to speak for anybody?" he said. "I can't do that."