Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Defense Advisers: Overhead Costs Sinking the Military
Defense Advisers: Overhead Costs Sinking the Military
By Sandra I. Erwin

With no signs that Congress will turn off the sequester, the Pentagon can choose to continue to let budget cuts sap the strength of the U.S. military, or it could, instead, take a page from GE's Jack Welch and slash unneeded bloat, a new study suggests.

The sequester amounts to $50 billion a year, or about 10 percent of the Pentagon's budget. Since the reductions took effect in March, Army training has been pared down, aircraft have been idled and fewer ships have been deployed. Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to spend about half its budget on administrative overhead that contributes little to nothing to military war-fighting missions, says a group of defense advisers. Their recommendations were published Sept. 24 by the Stimson Center, a non-partisan think tank.

Stimson's report offers 27 cost-cutting recommendations that add up to $50 billion in savings per year, or the equivalent to the sequester cuts. Most of the savings would come from "management reforms," overhead cuts and compensation policy changes.

"The reductions can be accommodated in a rational, strategy-based manner that minimizes their impact on the highest priority programs," says the study, titled, "Strategic Agility: Strong National Defense for Today’s Global and Fiscal Realities."

Another round of sequestration is only weeks away, and the Pentagon can no longer hope for a last-minute reprieve, says Barry Blechman, Stimson Center co-founder and chairman of the Defense Advisory Committee. As it did in 2013, the sequester in 2014 will "strike most programs equally with neither rhyme nor reason," he says.

Stimson's "Strategic Agility" is one of dozens of think-tank and commission reports that in recent years have offered advice on how to cut defense fat while preserving muscle and bone. None of these proposals have resulted in any serious action, Blechman recognized. But the Pentagon can no longer afford inaction, he says during a panel discussion on Capitol Hill.

"Fiscal realities are adding incentives" to attack overhead spending, says Blechman. "The military chiefs and [Defense Secretary] Chuck Hagel have been more outspoken about the need for reform." The resistance is coming from Congress, not the Defense Department, he says. Closing bases, firing civilians and eliminating contractor jobs are politically unpopular measures, but the alternative is to keep gutting the military's combat capabilities, he says. "In my view, it is irresponsible for the Congress to make the Defense Department take cuts in its operational readiness, military capabilities and force structure rather than permit these long overdue reforms."

Philip Odeen, a member of both the Stimson advisory group and the Pentagon's Defense Business Board, says the financial weight of defense overhead is gradually sinking the military. Infrastructure and overhead amount to about $235 billion a year, or nearly half the entire defense budget, says Odeen. "None of that is related ot fighting forces. That's a substantial target to go after." Military and civilian department "headquarters" alone consume $40 billion of that bill. These are purely administrative functions with no responsibility for directing troops, he says.

By simply removing layers of management, the Pentagon could save $4 billion a year, says Odeen. Hagel has already launched a review to find ways to trim these organizations, but there is still no plan to "fundamentally restructure" headquarters staffs, Odeen says. "We have multiple layers" of management everywhere. He recalled the advice the Defense Business Board got from famed cost cutter Welch, former chairman and chief executive of General Electric: "Layers are evil."

DBB members recently studied how corporations weathered the 2008 recession as a proxy for the problems the Pentagon is facing with sequestration. The panel found that, consistently, companies in every sector coped with the recession by shedding overhead that was not directly tied to their mission, Odeen says. "Companies took big actions. They cut pay, they closed facilities. ... In almost every case, as we talked to these leaders, they agreed, years later, that their organizations are stronger and more effective having taken all these layers out," he adds. "Our view is that Pentagon ought to take a similar approach before we cut too deeply into force structure and procurement."

Photo Credit: Thinkstock


Re: Defense Advisers: Overhead Costs Sinking the Military

How come no one ever talks about making the Air Force, Navy and Marines use Warrant Officers to fly aircraft like they do in the Army?  It would be 2/3 the cost of officers.
J Smith at 9/26/2013 4:05 PM

Re: Defense Advisers: Overhead Costs Sinking the Military

Anyone who knows anything about the Stimson Institute know it is NOT a think tank.  It is a defense industry lobby organization that wants YOU to believe they are non-partisan.
Please, read their report; I have.  There are NO actionable recommendations.  And they are absolutely silent on the single most damaging element of waste.
Here's one for you....They say, "By simply removing layers of management, the Pentagon could save $4 billion a year."  What exactly is "actionable?"
Yet no mention of what the GAO, the Cong Research Service, and the SECDEF reported to Congress...By simply transitioning our Advisory & Assistance Services contracts to civil service employees...we would immmediately save $20B per year.  A&AS contractors were audited to caost $204,000 per full-time-equivalent-year.  Although the report costs civil servants at $99,500; data actually shows it at almost $120,000.
Get to know your "Think Tanks" before you go repeating the press release and "scientific studies." in your "news" reports.
P Freeman at 10/2/2013 8:47 AM

Re: Defense Advisers: Overhead Costs Sinking the Military

I wish had some idea—any idea—where Mr. Freeman gets the idea that the Stimson Center is in the pocket of contractors. I don't work there; I do my think-tanking elsewhere. But I challenge him here to explain his assertion.
James Hasik at 10/2/2013 7:16 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share