The other day we were treated to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) going all ballistic about how SecDef Robert Gates, and by extension President Obama, were “gutting” the military. That piece of hyperbole is to be expected from the far right, who rarely let facts get in the way of their sound bytes.
Just in case you’ve been seduced by the GOP canard that Democrats “always” cut defense, let me share a few facts about Gates’ proposal. First, and perhaps most important, it represents a $12 billion INCREASE in the defense budget. Yes, some programs were cut — most noteably the F-22 and Airborne Laser (ABL), along with the grossly over budget presidential chopper fleet. But even there the far right is mis-stating the facts. The Gates proposal simply continues the Bush Administration’s decision not to purchase additional F-22. And the ABL decision reflects the fact that the program represents new, unproven technology — and that the R&D effort needs to be completed before a fleet is purchased.
And the Gates proposal includes more money for the troops — for the kind of equipment they really need to fight our current wars, and for their care after they return from combat. And it includes funding for additional troops, so that perhaps third, fourth and even fifth combat tours won’t be needed. That’s the kind of support our troops need, and the kind that was lacking, particularly under Rumsfeld’s leadership of the Dept. of Defense.
If you’ll remember, during the campaign, Obama promised to look at each and every defense system individually and to make funding decisions based on reason not politics. If you haven’t watched the documentary “Why We Fight,” I strongly recommend that you rent it. The take-away point is that the defense contractors have made sure that for each program, they spread the work done by suppliers to as many states as possible to ensure continued political support. The political howling with regard to Gates’ proposal has begun. Sen. Lieberman made an impassioned plea for the ABL program, despite the fact that he’s recommending procuring a fleet of planes (and their expensive lasers) for a technology that hasn’t yet been proven effective. Similarly, Rep. Buck McKeon praised the ability of the F-22 to survive missions that would only be flown against a foe with advanced fighter jets — i.e., a system that was designed to serve a Cold War purpose. What McKeon fails to mention is that the ongoing F-22 test and modification program occurs in his district. He also fails to mention that the Gates proposal includes additional F-35 joint-strike planes and represents a net gain to his district.
Sen. McCain was partially correct when he tried to put the President on the spot about the new presidential chopper fleet. The program is vastly over-budget. But that is only part of the story. The program suffered from what in the industry is called “requirements creep.” After the contract was awarded, the customer decided that additional equipment was needed on the craft. The additional weight of the equipment meant design changes. The revised design was a significantly larger vehicle. The time and effort in revising the design, the additional size, and the additional testing all contributed to increased costs.
It will be both interesting and vitally important for We the People to educate ourselves on the state of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (as that was Eisenhower’s inital prefered term).
My conservative readers may choose to dismiss this as just more liberal thinking, but let me share a few additional facts about my own history. I come from a family with extensive connections to the defense industry – as civilians working directly for the military, as career military personnel, as veterans, and as civilians working to design and test military aerospace systems. Thus, I have and continue to benefit directly from the defense industry. My spouse has a long career in aerospace, in programs that were at one time or are still classified. Yet, Gates’ proposal has wide support among that community. One recently-retired colleague sent an email yesterday commenting that actually reading Gates’ proposal led to a far more positive opinion than simply listening to the talking heads.
