Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
USA Today
April 8, 2009
Pg. 8
Our View
In an era of belt-tightening, it’s time for Pentagon to make choices, too.
Despite a defense budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year — astonishingly, that exceeds the military spending of the next 25 nations combined — the United States has struggled to deploy enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and get them the protective gear they need.
How could that be? How could the Pentagon lavish money on futuristic weapons systems but be short of soldiers and the low-tech equipment, such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, to help them survive roadside bombs?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has apparently been asking just these sorts of questions, and the answers he gave in a speech Monday reflected an overdue, if incomplete, shift in Pentagon thinking. Gates proposed to reorient the military to handle the guerilla-type wars U.S. forces are fighting today and the ones they're most likely to fight in the future. That means more ground forces, more special operations troops and more technology that can go to war now, such as helicopters, MRAPs and unmanned aircraft such as the Predator.
Though hardly transformational, Gates' message on weapons programs was refreshingly clear. With Americans everywhere tightening their belts and the federal budget hemorrhaging red ink, it's beyond time to take aim at expensive weapons projects that routinely outrun their cost estimates or squander billions on unproven technology. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" $296 billion.
As proof he means to attack bloat and mismanagement, Gates proposed to end the outrageously over-budget program to develop a new presidential helicopter and build only four more of the hugely capable but wildly expensive F-22 jet fighters, which could guarantee air superiority against future enemies but have no role in combat now.
As for some of the other specifics of Gates' plan, we don't pretend to know whether the right number of DDG-1000 class Navy destroyers is two, 10 or 20. Nor, we suspect, does the average member of Congress. Yet that isn't preventing lawmakers from howling that you can't cut weapons programs in a dangerous world at a time of economic crisis — an argument that neatly avoids even asking whether a weapon built in a particular congressman's district is a necessary combat tool or a gold-plated jobs program.
As with closing unneeded military bases, targeting weapons systems will trigger ferocious battles on Capitol Hill.
Lobbyists for military contractors will press for their programs. But if the Pentagon is going to get its priorities straight, it's a battle that needs to be fought.
Leave aside for a moment that Gates' proposal looks more like a shift of spending than an outright cut. Can anyone argue that when defense outlays have more than doubled in the past eight years, it's unreasonable to make choices and begin setting priorities? Is every weapons system dreamed up by military planners, developed by defense contractors or demanded by members of Congress really untouchable?
No.
After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave the Pentagon a virtual blank check. Some of what came from that was necessary, but some was wasteful and inefficient. It's time to decide which is which.
April 8, 2009
Pg. 8
Our View
In an era of belt-tightening, it’s time for Pentagon to make choices, too.
Despite a defense budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year — astonishingly, that exceeds the military spending of the next 25 nations combined — the United States has struggled to deploy enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and get them the protective gear they need.
How could that be? How could the Pentagon lavish money on futuristic weapons systems but be short of soldiers and the low-tech equipment, such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, to help them survive roadside bombs?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has apparently been asking just these sorts of questions, and the answers he gave in a speech Monday reflected an overdue, if incomplete, shift in Pentagon thinking. Gates proposed to reorient the military to handle the guerilla-type wars U.S. forces are fighting today and the ones they're most likely to fight in the future. That means more ground forces, more special operations troops and more technology that can go to war now, such as helicopters, MRAPs and unmanned aircraft such as the Predator.
Though hardly transformational, Gates' message on weapons programs was refreshingly clear. With Americans everywhere tightening their belts and the federal budget hemorrhaging red ink, it's beyond time to take aim at expensive weapons projects that routinely outrun their cost estimates or squander billions on unproven technology. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" $296 billion.
As proof he means to attack bloat and mismanagement, Gates proposed to end the outrageously over-budget program to develop a new presidential helicopter and build only four more of the hugely capable but wildly expensive F-22 jet fighters, which could guarantee air superiority against future enemies but have no role in combat now.
As for some of the other specifics of Gates' plan, we don't pretend to know whether the right number of DDG-1000 class Navy destroyers is two, 10 or 20. Nor, we suspect, does the average member of Congress. Yet that isn't preventing lawmakers from howling that you can't cut weapons programs in a dangerous world at a time of economic crisis — an argument that neatly avoids even asking whether a weapon built in a particular congressman's district is a necessary combat tool or a gold-plated jobs program.
As with closing unneeded military bases, targeting weapons systems will trigger ferocious battles on Capitol Hill.
Lobbyists for military contractors will press for their programs. But if the Pentagon is going to get its priorities straight, it's a battle that needs to be fought.
Leave aside for a moment that Gates' proposal looks more like a shift of spending than an outright cut. Can anyone argue that when defense outlays have more than doubled in the past eight years, it's unreasonable to make choices and begin setting priorities? Is every weapons system dreamed up by military planners, developed by defense contractors or demanded by members of Congress really untouchable?
No.
After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave the Pentagon a virtual blank check. Some of what came from that was necessary, but some was wasteful and inefficient. It's time to decide which is which.