Buck McKeon: A 'No' on Syria If Military Cuts Aren't Restored

Buck McKeon: A 'No' on Syria If Military Cuts Aren't Restored

I can't agree to send our troops on another mission without making sure they have the funding they need.

 

By BUCK MCKEON

As Congress debates whether to authorize a strike on Syria in response to Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons, much has been said and written about America's special role in the world. Simply put, the blessings of prosperity obligate the U.S. to enforce the peace it seeks.

There is no nobler duty. If the U.S. is unwilling to use its strength to respond to Assad's crimes, then the defenseless will continue to be slaughtered in Syria, and America risks having similar atrocities visited upon its citizens. To allow the use of weapons of mass destruction to go unanswered would be an abdication of America's unique responsibility in world affairs.

That said, consider the condition of the military that President Obama seeks to deploy against the Assad regime. Common sense dictates that if you increase how often the military is used at a time when the military budget is being cut, you should restore the funding or you're asking for trouble. It's the same with driving a car: If you put 175,000 miles on your Chevy and spend less on maintenance as time passes, soon that Chevy's going to be up on blocks.

The president, instead of dictating a clear national-security strategy and budgeting to meet those strategic aims, has instead done the opposite.

The USS Barry, a guided-missile destroyer that has been dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean for possible use against Syria.

During his five years in office, Mr. Obama has cut the defense budget three separate times, with the reductions totalling $1.2 trillion. President Obama surged troops to Afghanistan as he cut the military's budget. He sent the Air Force on bombing missions over Libya as he cut the military's budget. He initiated a "pivot" to Asia, focusing the Navy there, as he cut the military's budget. And now he is asking Congress to authorize military strikes against Syria while cutting the military's budget another $50 billion in the next fiscal year under sequestration.

Americans should be uncomfortable with the notion of deploying a depleted military to combat without a commitment on the part of the president and Congress to restore its funding. It's irrelevant if the plan in Syria ultimately calls for cruise missile strikes, airstrikes or boots on the ground. The American people have always demanded that if the U.S. military goes to war, troops are provided with the equipment and support necessary to win.

While the president intends to carry out a "limited" strike—as he and Secretary of State John Kerry have emphasized—history has taught that war is unpredictable, and unexpected events may require more force. This is why, during this debate, we can't ignore the budget-sequester cuts that fell with extra weight on the military.

I share President Obama's concern about the barbaric use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians. I also care deeply about U.S. standing in a region where credibility counts. When the president drew his red line, he put America's cards on the table.

However, I am equally concerned about the condition of a military that has been chewed up from budget cuts and years of fighting. Mr. Obama is now asking Congress to respond to the Assad regime's brutality with military force. But the day before he asked Congress to authorize this mission, he told our troops that their salaries will be almost 1% less than expected next year.

This is unacceptable. We cannot keep asking U.S. troops to perform dangerous missions while multiple rounds of defense cuts, including sequestration, hang over their heads. There must be a balance between the missions the president asks the military to do and the missions the president is willing to fund. You don't conduct military campaigns with half a heart or half a wallet. Or, as Napoleon put it: "When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna."

On Tuesday last week, I was encouraged to learn that the president shares my concerns. At the end of a meeting with other congressional leaders, he told me that he wants to find a way to fix sequestration. I am taking him at his word, which is why I have asked for a follow-up meeting to discuss specifically how he intends to restore military spending.

I need to understand just how committed the president is to negotiating a resolution on sequester in order to make an informed decision about my vote to use military force in Syria. I understand that we can't lessen the damage of sequester before taking action in Syria. But we have a near-term opportunity to do so.

I plan to ask the president, in light of the weight of his decision to intervene in Syria, for his commitment to address sequestration as part of any deal on the debt ceiling. If he makes that commitment, then he has my support. If not, I won't be able to vote to send our over-stretched and under-funded military into action. The opportunity to undo the harm of the budget sequester is unlikely to come around again.

Support for a military strike is uncertain, particularly in the House. The idea that we would—once again—deploy forces while they are financially strapped weighs heavily on many members, including me, who would otherwise vote in favor of a strike.

In the coming days the president and his advisers will be working to allay many understandable concerns: What are the likely secondary effects of a strike? How will the president achieve his broad policy goal of ending Assad's rule with such a limited mission? Is having Assad "step aside," as the president put it in 2011, still the end goal?

With budget sequestration, as with Syria, President Obama's policies have put this country in a tight spot. But as commander in chief, he has the power to pull us out.

Mr. McKeon, a congressman from California, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

A version of this article appeared September 10, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A 'No' on Syria If Military Cuts Aren't Restored.