The Pentagon Has to Learn a New Language: English

To communicate the effects of budget cuts, officials will now try to avoid both “Pentagon-speak” and hyperbole.

ARLINGTON, VA - FEBRUARY 24: U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (L) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (R) depart after answering questions at a press conference at the Pentagon February 24, 2014 in Arlington, Virginia. Hagel and Dempsey spoke about the upcoming Defense Department budget requests during the press conference. A proposal released February 24, plans to shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Add to Briefcase
Sara Sorcher
Feb. 27, 2014, midnight

If the Pentagon wants to solve its budget prob­lems, it’s go­ing to have to solve its com­mu­nic­a­tion prob­lem first.

For years, the De­fense De­part­ment has been try­ing to ex­plain to Con­gress why the se­quester’s mil­it­ary budget cuts are a threat to na­tion­al se­cur­ity. But thus far, it hasn’t gone well.

When they were fight­ing the 2013 cuts, Pentagon of­fi­cials op­ted for col­or­ful lan­guage, de­scrib­ing the up­com­ing cuts as “fisc­al cas­tra­tion” or “a dooms­day mech­an­ism.” But they would also il­lus­trate their points with a slew of Pentagon buzzwords. Of­fi­cials would in­sist, for in­stance, that the cuts would harm mil­it­ary “read­i­ness,” of­ten without ex­plain­ing ex­actly how they would de­grade the mil­it­ary’s abil­ity to fight.

None of that per­suaded Con­gress to spare the Pentagon from the se­quester, but this week marks the start of an­oth­er at­tempt. The Pentagon offered up a pared-down $496 bil­lion budget pro­pos­al for next year, some $45 bil­lion less than what it ori­gin­ally ex­pec­ted. It is fa­cing hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of ad­di­tion­al re­duc­tions in the com­ing years.

And as De­fense of­fi­cials fight for fund­ing — to the tune of $115 bil­lion above the caps Con­gress im­posed over five years — they re­main plagued by the com­mu­nic­a­tion fail­ures of their past, but they’re de­term­ined to find a more ef­fect­ive way for­ward.

Their first step: ac­know­ledging their past ap­proach failed.

“We aren’t com­mu­nic­at­ing. We were not able to com­mu­nic­ate the im­pact of se­quester last year,” act­ing Deputy De­fense Sec­ret­ary Christine Fox told an audi­ence Wed­nes­day at the con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute think tank. “Be­cause we talked about read­i­ness, and nobody knows what read­i­ness is…. We go in­to Pentagon-speak, I get it.”

Pentagon of­fi­cials are already tak­ing a new tack on their in­form­a­tion­al charm of­fens­ive: a little straight talk.

It’s not just that De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel pre­viewed his budget pro­pos­al a full week be­fore the gi­ant tome lands on law­makers’ desks on March 4. His depu­ties — Fox, his comp­troller Robert Hale, and chief weapons buy­er Frank Kend­all — are all over Wash­ing­ton at in­dustry con­fer­ences and think tanks ex­plain­ing ex­actly what was cut in the budget, and what was spared, and why.

The Pentagon’s budget, too, is fi­nally spelling out ex­actly what will suf­fer if Con­gress does not give them ex­tra money, after years of fail­ing to plan for the worst. For ex­ample, the Army, which will shrink by some 40,000 troops in next year’s re­quest, could lose an­oth­er 30,000 troops the fol­low­ing year if the mil­it­ary does not get more money. The Pentagon will have to re­tire an air­craft car­ri­er; the en­tire KC-10 tanker fleet will be cut.

After years of vague warn­ings, the Pentagon’s new­found trans­par­ency means mem­bers of Con­gress will fi­nally be able to feel the polit­ic­al im­pact on their dis­tricts from de­fense cuts of this mag­nitude.

Still, it is not go­ing to be easy to ex­plain to Con­gress that the tradeoffs in the mil­it­ary’s budget for next year are meant to pre­serve its core abil­ity to fight — even if it means do­ing away with key pro­grams law­makers want. Or how the Pentagon is plan­ning for the best, in case law­makers de­cide to dole out more money and avert the worst-case scen­ario in fu­ture years. “If we tried harder, we couldn’t have made this budget more com­plic­ated,” Fox said. “There are ac­tu­ally mul­tiple budgets em­bed­ded in this sub­mis­sion.”

So of­fi­cials, by their own ad­mis­sion, are ad­apt­ing in how they talk about the budget pres­sures.

Fox brought up an NPR in­ter­view she did re­cently as an ex­ample. “I talked about hav­ing your teen­ager driv­ing to Ohio in a snowstorm,” she said. A par­ent nat­ur­ally wants to make sure the teen­ager can drive, that the car works, and that there’s a spare tire if it breaks down, Fox ex­plained. She said she is open to test­ing out the de­part­ment’s mes­sage on fo­cus groups of non­mil­it­ary people.

The Pentagon’s next chal­lenge is to con­vince law­makers that every pet pri­or­ity they want to add in the “tightly craf­ted” budget pack­age means something else of­fi­cials be­lieve is crit­ic­al must be re­moved. Fox said Hagel asked her to put to­geth­er a “ti­ger team” armed with facts and strong ar­gu­ments to de­fend the budget re­quest.

“We’re go­ing to do everything in our power to ex­plain those tradeoffs, if they force us, as they have every year, to keep things we don’t want to keep,” Fox said. “There’s not slop here. We have to take it out some­where else.”

Kend­all, un­der­sec­ret­ary of De­fense for ac­quis­i­tion, tech­no­logy, and lo­gist­ics, is also be­com­ing aware of how us­ing loaded meta­phors and scary lan­guage is not ne­ces­sar­ily the best al­tern­at­ive to bland Pentagon-speak or ac­ronym soup. Kend­all said the de­part­ment “cried wolf” about the dev­ast­a­tion the se­quester cuts would wreak be­fore they took hold. “What we did in ‘13 was sort of the death of 1,000 cuts,” he said.

This year, se­quest­ra­tion just got real. The Pentagon in pre­vi­ous years was able to blunt the full im­pact of the se­quester by us­ing funds left over from pre­vi­ous years; delay­ing po­ten­tially bil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of con­tracts; and tak­ing ad­vant­age of changes in the law that gave the de­part­ment more flex­ib­il­ity. There were few highly vis­ible con­sequences to the cuts they warned against.

Law­makers, with some new visu­al aids, are start­ing to read the tea leaves — and stak­ing out their pri­or­it­ies. Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hamp­shire is cam­paign­ing for the A-10 air­craft the Air Force wants to re­tire, for in­stance, and Demo­crat­ic Sen. Richard Blu­menth­al of Con­necti­c­ut is seek­ing Pentagon com­mit­ments on the Pave Hawk com­bat-res­cue heli­copters.

Now that the cuts are start­ing to hit close to law­makers’ homes, the Pentagon could fi­nally have a chance to undo them. 

What We're Following See More »
SAYS HIS DEATH STEMMED FROM A FISTFIGHT
Saudis Admit Khashoggi Killed in Embassy
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."

Source:
ROGER STONE IN THE CROSSHAIRS?
Mueller Looking into Ties Between WikiLeaks, Conservative Groups
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter."

Source:
PROBING COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION
Mueller To Release Key Findings After Midterms
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections ... Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice." Mueller has faced pressure to wrap up the investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said an official, who would receive the results of the investigation and have "some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released," if he remains at his post.

Source:
PASSED ON SO-CALLED "SAR" REPORTS
FinCen Official Charged with Leaking Info on Manafort, Gates
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS
"A senior official working for the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has been charged with leaking confidential financial reports on former Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and others to a media outlet. Prosecutors say that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser to FinCEN, photographed what are called suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and other sensitive government files and sent them to an unnamed reporter, in violation of U.S. law."
Source:
FIRST CHARGE FOR MIDTERMS
DOJ Charges Russian For Meddling In 2018 Midterms
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Justice Department on Friday charged a Russian woman for her alleged role in a conspiracy to interfere with the 2018 U.S. election, marking the first criminal case prosecutors have brought against a foreign national for interfering in the upcoming midterms. Elena Khusyaynova, 44, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors said she managed the finances of 'Project Lakhta,' a foreign influence operation they said was designed 'to sow discord in the U.S. political system' by pushing arguments and misinformation online about a host of divisive political issues, including immigration, the Confederate flag, gun control and the National Football League national-anthem protests."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login