Our guest bloggers are Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Larry Korb and CAP national security intern Sam Klug.

Cost overruns caused by management failures on Department of Defense contracts in the last two years exceeded the entire annual budget of the State Department. And not by a little bit, either — the cost overruns came to $70 billion, while the U.S. spends only $47 billion on the State Department every year. Facts like this one indicate the need to rethink the way we budget for national security issues.

As talks on deficit reduction heat up, lawmakers have begun to suggest — finally — that cuts to the Pentagon budget must be “on the table.” Yet just weeks ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a massive $682.5 billion budget for the Defense Department. The Center for American Progress has for years supported and contributed to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, which last week released its 2012 proposal to rebalance national security spending. The Unified Security Budget (USB) offers a comprehensive look at our national security needs and the military and non-military tools we use to address them, identifying areas where unnecessary military spending (like those cost overruns we mentioned earlier) could REALLY be cut — as opposed to just reducing current estimates of spending growth.

Looking at security holistically, the Task Force finds that the FY2012 budget the House approved allocates 87 percent of security money for “offense” (military forces), only 7 percent for “defense” (homeland security), and only 6 percent for “prevention” (all non-military tools, such as diplomacy, foreign aid, and non-proliferation). The Task Force’s main goal is to place these figures more in balance. In order to do so, it identifies $77.1 billion in Pentagon savings, and it recommends reinvesting $28.1 billion of those savings in non-military, security-related accounts. Of the remainder of the savings, the Task Force suggests allocating half to deficit reduction and half to domestic job creation. While members of Congress only seem to want to discuss the budget, the Task Force understands that the United States faces not only a budget deficit, but an investment deficit, a diplomacy deficit, and a development deficit as well.

Sustainability is a major focus of the USB. In its review of America’s roles and missions abroad, the Task Force promotes “an effective and sustainable balance among available instruments of power,” arguing that the recent approach to security, through boots-on-the-ground-heavy nation-building and counterinsurgency, has cost too much in blood and treasure to be continued for much longer. This recommendation sounds surprisingly similar to former Secretary of Defense (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) Robert Gates’ comment that “any future defense secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”

Sustainability in our budget, our economy, and, importantly, our environment rank high among the USB’s goals as well. Of the $28.1 billion it recommends reinvesting within our national security apparatus, by far the largest share — $22.4 billion — is designated for alternative energy. In addition to helping DOD combat the security threat of climate change, this money “will do the double duty of paying dividends in job creation.”

Almost nothing illustrates the imbalance in our national priorities better than the way we allocate money for national security. Adopting a unified security budget would represent a step toward the recognition that not every problem this country faces requires a deployment of military power — and that we can be safer and more prosperous if we budget accordingly.

A new United Nations report criticized Israel’s use of disproportionate force in clashes with Palestinian protesters attempting to enter Israel from Lebanon. Seven died and 111 were injured when the Israeli army opened fire on the protesters during their commemoration — known as Nakba Day — of Palestinian dispossession resulting from Israel’s founding in 1948.

While criticizing the Shia Lebanese militia Hezbollah for helping to organize the border demonstration, the U.N. report found that Israel did not take the necessary steps before deploying deadly force against the protesters:

Other than firing initial warning shots, the Israel Defence Forces did not use conventional crowd control methods or any other method than lethal weapons against the demonstrators.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon chimed in with a statement at the end of the report, noting that Israel “used direct live fire against unarmed demonstrators”:

I call on the Israel Defence Forces to refrain from responding with live fire in such situations, except where clearly required in immediate self-defence.

The U.N. said the disproportionate use of force constituted a violation of U.N. Resolution 1701, which ended the summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

After the announcement of the report, Israel reacted with indignation, refusing to officially comment and canceling a planned periodic trip to Israel by the report’s author, U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams.

When asked about Israel’s controversial crowd control methods at the time, a U.S. State Department spokesperson refused to condemn the use of live ammunition against the protesters. (h/t: Mondoweiss)

During a recent interview with the Financial Times, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that the United States should offer the Iraqis up to 13,000 troops to stay past the Dec. 31, 2011 total withdrawal deadline. As if to water down his proposal, McCain stressed that these forces would be “non-combat”:

McCAIN: The United States has got to come forth with our proposal as to what we think they need and then I believe that it’s very possible — and I emphasize possible — that the Iraqis could then decide unanimously that they want the residual U.S. presence, which would certainly be non-combat and would certainly be largely technical.

McCain also said that he’s not concerned about the cost of maintaining a large military presence abroad. FT’s Anna Fifield asked McCain if he thinks it’s “realistic” for the United States to be continuing and expanding its military presence abroad “in a time of such budgetary pressure.” “I do,” McCain said. Watch it:

Even though McCain doesn’t seem to be worried about the debt and deficit here at home, the United States could save up to $12 billion per year by responsibly scaling back its military presence in Europe and Asia and reducing the amount of active-duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to below 100,000.

But as we’ve seen over the past several months, a “non-combat” role for U.S. troops in Iraq doesn’t mean that U.S. troops won’t be engaging in combat with insurgents and extremists there. Blogger Spencer Ackerman recently called any suggestion that these U.S. forces won’t be engaging in combat past 2011 “bullshit“:

A prospective post-2011 residual force gets spun as an embassy-based force that’ll train Iraqis how to operate and maintain their American weaponry, or help keep diplomats safe. Bullshit. You can bet that the absolute last units to leave will [be the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula]. During his confirmation hearing last week, ex-JSOC/incoming SOCOM chief Adm. William McRaven forecasted his desire to keep them there. And since the new White House counterterrorism strategy boils down to “kill anyone anywhere with drones and commandos who we think might have so much as plus-one’d al-Qaeda,” Iraq can’t very well fall off that list. You can also bet that Panetta and McRaven don’t want to cede Iraq to Iranian influence, no matter how many times we have to be reminded that a democratic Iraq is going to be comfortable with Teheran.

No matter how much McCain and others dress up keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011, they are most certainly going to be engaging in combat, which will of course mean more American casualties.

Our guest blogger is Ben Smithgall, an external affairs intern at the Center for American Progress.

Last month, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a defense appropriations bill that would ultimately give the Pentagon $544 billion next year. This week, as the full chamber debates the bill, the House should take a long look at the proposal and ask what the nation truly needs to defend itself today.

The Defense Department’s budget request calls for $24 billion to be invested in Shipbuilding and Maritime Systems. Of these funds, $3.2 billion is to be invested in the construction of two new first-rate Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines. The true value in these boats lies in “deep ocean anti-submarine warfare.”

However, it’s unclear what practical value these submarines will serve. These subs probably aren’t particularly useful in combating non-existent al Qaeda and Taliban submarines on missions taking place in land-locked Afghanistan. Moreover, as CAP’s Larry Korb, Laura Conley, and Alex Rothman noted, “The U.S. Navy currently possesses more firepower than the next 20 largest navies combined — many of which are U.S. allies.” The U.S. has 11 aircraft carriers. In comparison, Italy, the second largest carrier fleet, maintains two. Yet, the Navy has shown no desire to cut the production of these vessels.

Meanwhile, in his recent address laying out his Afghanistan policy, President Obama said, “America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.”

Yet spending billions on an impractical submarine would mean that the U.S. is not focusing on nation building here at home. As Korb and Conley wrote last year, cutting back on the Virginia class sub can save nearly $3 billion:

Current production plans call for increasing the buy of Virginia-class submarines from one per year in FY 2010 to two subs per year from FY 2011 to FY 2015. Keeping Virginia-class vessel production steady at one per year through 2015 or 2016 — rather than ramping up to two submarines per year as currently planned — is a sensible step toward keeping defense spending under control that would also keep the Virginia-class production lines in business and not jeopardize national security if we re-core some of the Los Angeles-class vessels.

Instead of looking for responsible ways to change the defense budget and save money, the House cut the WIC nutrition program, which provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, and health referrals to low-income Americans. The move would force between 300,000 and 450,000 Americans to forgo these health and wellness services. For the cost of one-half of one of these submarines, the proposed cuts on WIC could be halted, and people in need would not be forced away from the program. Time and again, WIC has been documented as one of the most successful federal assistance programs, reducing child anemia, lowering infant mortality rates and allowing participants to enjoy improved nutrition and health.

Instead, the House is pursuing the construction of new deep ocean anti-submarine vessels. Perhaps it is time to actually realize the idea of nation building here at home by being responsible with our defense budget.