Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). November 12, 2013.
For several years, the defense budget has been under siege from government-wide budget gridlock and a legislative stalemate. The Department of Defense (DoD) has dutifully built its budgets and submitted them to Congress, but final appropriations have often differed substantially, making it hard for DoD to implement its own plans. Government shutdowns add to the confusion, and the short-term stopgap legislation of continuing resolutions prevents DoD from implementing any long-term solutions to budget challenges. The lack of full-year appropriations, the additional complications of spending caps from the Budget Control Act of 2011, and the arbitrary budget cuts from the process of sequestration only compound the impact of this uncertainty. [Note: contains copyrighted matrial].
http://csis.org/files/publication/131112_chap5_Berteau.pdf [PDF format, 4 pages].
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). July 24, 2013.
This study explores the difficult choices facing the United States as it plans the next-generation military satellite communications architecture. It offers a number of specific recommendations on how to bridge the gap between the capabilities needed and the funding available. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2013/07/the-future-of-milsatcom/ [PDF format, 57 pages].
Council on Foreign Relations. July 30, 2013.
Military budgets are only one gauge of military power. A given financial commitment may be adequate or inadequate depending on the number and capability of a nation’s adversaries, how well a country invests its funds, and what it seeks to accomplish, among other factors. Nevertheless, trends in military spending do reveal something about a country’s capacity for coercion. Policymakers are currently debating the appropriate level of U.S. military spending given increasingly constrained budgets and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The following charts present historical trends in U.S. military spending and analyze the forces that may drive it lower. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
United States Department of Defense. April 2013.
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 requests $526.6 billion to protect and advance security interests at home and abroad during the coming fiscal year and into the future. This budget reflects the difficult choices involved with protecting America’s security interests and role as a global power at a time of declining budgets and ongoing fiscal uncertainty about the future. This paper highlights the Department’s ongoing efforts to achieve an agile and ready force while maintaining the right capabilities and capacity to rapidly deal with contingencies across the globe.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DefenseBudgetPrioritiesChoicesFiscalYear2014.pdf [PDF format, 33 pages].
Congressional Research Service. January 3, 2013.
On January 26, 2012, senior DOD leadership unveiled a new defense strategy based on a review of potential future security challenges, current defense strategy, and budgetary constraints. This new strategy envisions a smaller, leaner Army that is agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, and technologically advanced. This strategy will rebalance the Army’s global posture and presence,emphasizing where potential problems are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202877.pdf [PDF format, 39 pages].