Congressional Republicans and Democrats empathize with military leaders who must deal with sequestration.
And who wouldn't?
If one listens only to current and retired four-star general and amdirals, one could be excused from thinking the across-the-board budget cuts will bring down the world's lone superpower.
"No foe could wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving," retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, a former head of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) last week.
For the latest national security news from Capitol Hill, go to CongressWatch
To review, one of the most revered US military commanders in recent times says cuts to a budget that approaches half a trillion dollars annually are no match for nuclear-armed China or Russia.
Strategists and budgeteers will no doubt want to unpack "Mad Dog" Mattis' bold pronouncement.
Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats — publicly, at least — agreed with Mattis. After saluting the chiefs for their service, that is. That's just good politics when the cameras are on.
John T. Bennett is the senior congressional reporter for Defense News.
Photo Credit: Mike Morones
"Sequestration was designed to be ... so stupid and unacceptable that Congress would never allow it to go into place. One of the reasons that it doesn't make much sense is that we're focusing all our budgetary attention on a declining part of the budget," King said, referring to the annual Pentagon budget.
"The growth in the budget right now is in mandatory programs, and particularly in health-care costs: Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Program. That's what's driving the federal deficit. It's not defense."
He wasn't finished. And his subsequent rhetorical display would have made "Mad Dog" proud.
King, who caucuses with Senate Democrats, says focusing half the sequestration cuts on defense is akin to "invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. It's a vigorous reaction, but it's the wrong target because that is not where the problem is."
The next Senate Democratic caucus lunch might feature some sideways glances toward King over those remarks, which echo congressional Republicans.
Did he then mention a sequester-nixing plan that met the demands of the White House (more tax revenues) and Republicans (deeper spending cuts)? No.
To be fair, nor did any other member during hours of gloomy talk.
"We don't have a plan," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., declared minutes later.
My Defense News colleague Aaron Mehta, in a Twitter back-and-forth with me and Foreign Policy's Kate Brannen, noted the chiefs, Congress and the White House say "sequester is a problem."
Brannen quickly weighed in, using Twitter shorthand: "I think Congress & WH secretly like it. Keeps hands clean. Cut defense w/o being responsible for it. Bipartisan blame shifting."
This columnist, who has covered sequestration from its conception in 2011, replied: "Kate has discovered the secret ingredient."
Both parties reject mere talk from the other that could end the automatic defense cuts.
Empathy is no match for obstruction. It's no solution, either.
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
