A Leaner Pentagon

With his new defense strategy, President Obama has put forward a generally pragmatic vision of how this country will organize and deploy its military in the 21st century, while also addressing its deep fiscal problems.

It is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force — a relief after President George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq. It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn’t minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require another buildup.

It argues, persuasively, that many of the challenges out there can be dealt with by air power, intelligence, special operations or innovative technologies like drones.

Mr. Obama wants to spend less on nuclear weapons — the most unnecessary part of the arsenal — although how much less is unclear. He plans to focus more resources on naval and air power in the Strait of Hormuz, to contain an increasingly assertive Iran, and in Asia, to moderate and counterbalance China’s ambitions. We agree that the United States needs to be more engaged in both areas, but the new Asia focus, in particular, must not be an excuse to avoid other needed budget cuts.

With all American troops out of Iraq and Mr. Obama’s pledge to draw down in Afghanistan, it is time for a serious evaluation of the strategic environment and this country’s role and responsibilities. The fiscal crisis has made that more urgent.

Congress has already mandated nearly $500 billion in cuts in Pentagon spending over the next decade, and this strategy takes those into consideration. The failure of the Congressional supercommittee to reach a deficit deal means almost $500 billion more are supposed to kick in next January, but it is unclear how that would affect the new strategy. Both sets of cuts can be absorbed, if made prudently. No one should feel sorry for the Pentagon: It has had a blank check for a decade, and even with these cuts, the budget will continue to grow.

Republicans are predictably in high dudgeon over the decision to jettison the cold-war concept of being able to fight and win two conventional land wars simultaneously. It was always an artificial construct intended mainly to ensure the Pentagon got all it wanted.

Still, the United States must be ready to face multiple contingencies. Our own chilling list includes a collapsing Pakistan, another state hijacked by Al Qaeda, Iran blocking oil shipping as it pursues its nuclear ambitions or a weak or unbalanced North Korean leader making a suicidal run across the South Korean border.

At a Pentagon briefing where Mr. Obama put his personal stamp on the strategy, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insisted that the country “will always be able to do more than one thing at a time. More importantly, wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win.”

They gave few details on what the new strategy will mean in practice. According to reports in The Times, the Pentagon plans to shrink the Army even below current targets, dropping to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade. That sounds reasonable, but there must be a clear plan on how to build up again quickly if needed.

We understand the importance of sending a clear message that this country is not ceding anything in the Pacific to China. But that cannot become the Pentagon’s newest argument for unrestrained spending. The Times reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has already made the mistaken decision not to eliminate any of the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers; even scaling back to 10 could save at least $4 billion over the next decade.

It came at the barrel of a budget-cutting gun, but President Obama has begun to bring more rationality to military planning. The real impact of the strategy will be seen in the budget he unveils later this month.