

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta really, really wants the Army to like him. In a pander-filled speech on Wednesday morning to the Army's annual Washington D.C. convention, Panetta pledged that the Army has a big role in national security even after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end and budget cuts ravage the Pentagon. And he all but threatened to quit if Congress cuts the budget too deeply.

Those impending budget cuts hang over every shiny display in the ballrooms at the Association of the United States Army convention. All the gadgets that defense companies brought to the convention floor – the mock-ups of new trucks, the anti-armor missiles behind sparkly glass, the modernized helicopters that look like they're ready to take off – taunt an Army that can't afford them. The Army's leadership bitterly promised on Monday to fight for its money.

Panetta had a simple message for the convention: he'll fight with the soldiers, and might not stick around the Pentagon if he doesn't win. The automatic, trillion-dollar budget cuts ("this goofy meataxe scenario") that will kick in if Congress can't reach a comprehensive budget deal would leave the military "unable to adapt when that next security challenge comes," he said. Then he went further.

"Hollow[ing] out the force" is a mistake "we made repeatedly in the 20th century" after each major war, Panetta said, echoing a theme that can be heard throughout this convention by phalanxes of officers freaked out over budget cuts. "We must never make that mistake again," Panetta said, raising his voice for emphasis on the punchline: "It will not happen on my watch."

Except that Panetta can't do anything about Congress' arduous deliberations. He can seek to influence them. He can keep sketching out his "doomsday" scenarios. But he can't deliver any votes on the Hill, especially not over domestic-policy questions like raising taxes or cutting Social Security benefits.

So a defense secretary who the Senate approved in an unprecedented unanimous vote has only one card to play: he can quit in protest. Unless his "will not happen on my watch" line is a cheap pander, that's what Panetta implied. It remains to be seen how much weight that carries in Congress.

But Panetta's speech wasn't just a weapon aimed at Capitol Hill. It was an attempt to reassure the Army that he's got its back, specifically. And for good reason: even retired Army generals think that the realistic threats of the future can't be confronted with invasions or a big ground force. Panetta came to the convention to dismiss that idea.

Counterterrorism will still be a mission for the Army, even after the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Army will still need to train foreign partner militaries. "Frankly, we will likely be fighting somewhere in the world for a long time to come," Panetta said. Then come more traditional missions.

"This nation needs an Army that can deter any potential aggressor – an expeditionary Army able to deploy to distant battlefields and, upon arrival, decisively overwhelm any enemy land force," Panetta said. "And if an enemy does challenge us in a conventional land war, we need an Army that can, as General George Patton used to say, 'Hold the [enemy] by the nose and kick them in the ass.'"

It was Panetta's biggest applause line of the speech. And it's all the more remarkable because it was preceded by a section about how during an era of tight budgets, all four military services must "do what's best for the entire force, not just what's best for their own service." And it was immediately followed by a concession that "the reality is there aren't a lot of countries out there building massive tank armies."

All this was pretty much the opposite approach taken Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates, as much as Panetta has tried to emulate Gates. In February, Gates went to West Point, the incubator for the Army's next generation, to tell cadets that the future of war was at sea, in the air, in space and online.

This flirtation with unrealistic scenarios showed up in another big defense-budget speech that Panetta gave on Tuesday – his first as secretary. In that one, Panetta contended a smaller Army that remains "highly capable and ready" is better than a "larger, hollow force." No one would dispute that, least of all the Army. But then he immediately followed by saying, "While some limited reductions can take place, I must be able to maintain a sufficient force to confront the potential of having to fight more than one war."

Except that the Army has spent most of the last decade fighting two simultaneous wars. And in 2007, it had to add more soldiers (Marines, too) in order to keep doing so. "We've proven in the last ten years we could not" fight two major wars with an Army of 480,000 soldiers, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters on Monday. While it's not clear if the budget cuts will force the Army to shrink back to that size, Odierno bluntly said, "We'll have to change the [national defense] strategy, what we're able to do, if we fall below a certain level."

There's a more generous reading of Panetta's speech. In it, Panetta is buttering up the Army now to prepare it for budgetary pain later, the better to keep the ground services on his side. On that read, the lines about military branches each making sacrifices for the good of the overall military are most important. It's possible.

But the speech Panetta gave to the Association of the U.S. Army didn't give any indication about how he'll reach the tough budgetary decisions he will have to take. He can bluster about rejecting a hollow Army. He can promise that the Army is still relevant even after an era of ground warfare. And he can suggest he'll quit if he doesn't get his way.

But Panetta didn't articulate how he will lead the Army so it doesn't become a hollow, irrelevant force. Nor did he explain what threats the Army has to realistically prepare to confront in an era of smaller budgets. And if Panetta can't answer those major questions, maybe the Army won't miss him if he ends up making good on his threat to quit.

Photo: DoD

See Also:- Panetta’s Excellent Pentagon Adventure: Cut Cash, Rewrite Strategy