Experts divided on Pentagon's proposed cuts

Some military experts Friday called Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's proposed budget cuts "much ado about nothing," but others expressed concern about the potential of a shrinking U.S. military in the strategic Mideast and Asia.

"The bottom line is that despite all the bells and whistles, this is much ado about nothing," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under the Reagan administration.

Because of tremendous increases in defense spending the past decade, Panetta's plan to cut $487 billion in the next 10 years merely holds "the baseline defense budget near historic highs," Korb said.

The proposed cuts mean that the Pentagon will spend less than originally planned, but the military "will still spend $2.73 trillion over the next five years, more than the $2.59 trillion spent over the last five years," Korb said in his analysis for the Center for American Progress, where he is a senior fellow.

In a CNN interview, he added: "You're reducing the projected level of defense spending, so it's not a real reduction."

Other analysts expressed serious caution over the planned reductions.

"I wouldn't trivialize this direction," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security.

"Will the United States be the dominant guarantor for the balance of power in the Asia Pacific in the 2020s?" particularly with potential threats from Iran and China, Cronin asked.

"Those countries become symbolic of what could make the United States military vulnerable as time goes along, especially as budget cuts go along," Cronin said. "Others say it's hogwash: the United States is so strong, we're exaggerating the threat."

The proposal can be interpreted as a new budget of "a second Obama administration" as President Barack Obama seeks re-election this year, Cronin said.

"This defense is the beginning of a declining American military presence in which we're going to be heading the way of Britain: We're going to be pulling back east of Suez to becoming a middle power to a minor middle power, in terms of the defense cuts," Cronin said.

"We just don't know the trend lines," he added. "This could be a milestone of where we're going to be heading for the next five years."

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the budget cuts seemed prudent.

"We do have to view the debt and deficit as national security issues and threats themselves, so it does make sense to look for savings," O'Hanlon said.

Whether the reductions go too far, however, is a concern, he added.

"As much as these cuts are reasonable, I'm not sure they established a reasonable fire wall below which further cuts could go," O'Hanlon said. "I think substantially smaller forces would be perilous."

Anthony Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, questioned whether the proposed cuts over 10 years is really meaningful in the face of rapid world change.

"While everybody talks about 10 years, if the American economy recovers, if there's a new threat, if technology changes, so does everything in the defense budget," Cordesman said.

Under Panetta's proposal, the defense budget would be reduced by $487 billion over a decade.

The savings would begin in October, the start of fiscal year 2013.