Saving Lives vs. Saving Dollars: The A-10 Debate

Andrew Pappert / July 16, 2014

In her recent article for The Hill, Heritage senior policy analyst Diem Salmon explains the debate over whether the Air Force should retire its entire fleet of A-10 warplanes:

The reason why the A-10 decision is so difficult is because budget pressure from Congress is forcing choices about capabilities that will have a clear and negative impact on critical battlefield operations in a time when American forces are still in combat.

This debate, as discussed by Salmon, is a snapshot of the larger problem of defense planning becoming a budget-driven rather than requirements-driven process.

Congress has been unwilling to reform entitlement programs that have a large impact on the deficit, instead forcing the military to cut proven capabilities, thereby increasing risk to U.S. national security interests and U.S. forces. Unless Congress begins to fully fund defense, situations like the A-10 will only get worse in the coming years.

In addition, there are other defense reforms that Congress and the Pentagon can implement that would help control rising costs in the military. For example, the U.S. could save an estimated $32 billion each year by using performance-based logistics. Congress needs to begin making smarter budgetary decisions that positively affect the military over the long term rather than making short-term cuts that negatively impact our effectiveness on the battlefield.

Andrew Pappert is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, pleaseclick here.