Change the Pentagon Doesn't Believe In
Washington Dispatch: President-elect Obama wants to slash wasteful military spending. To Pentagon bureaucrats, defense contractors, and congressional porkers, this means war.
November 21, 2008
|
|
As the Obama transition continues, there's much speculation as to whom the president-elect will ask to head the Pentagon and whether he might invite Robert Gates to stay on. Less attention, however, has been paid to a critical, but related, issue: Will Gates or his successor be able to make good on Obama's promise to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending" from the military budget? On the campaign trail, Obama frequently cautioned that changing the federal government will not be easy. Perhaps nowhere will this be truer than in the Pentagon's ossified bureaucracy. Reforming it may be the toughest job in Washington. In pursuing this mission, Obama and his man (or woman) at the Pentagon will face opposition from entrenched interests in the uniformed military and private industry, as well as on Capitol Hill.
The Pentagon is used to getting what it wants, as evidenced by its recent spending spree. The "base" defense budget, which excludes the expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has grown 40 percent since 2001 to an estimated $518.3 billion requested for fiscal year 2009. But this doesn't tell the whole story. If you figure in other military expenditures, such as those incurred by the departments of Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and the numerous defense "supplemental" bills that the Bush administration has relied on to fund its foreign adventures, US defense spending stands at a staggering $863.7 billion. This exceeds the collective annual defense spending of the world's militaries combined.
The issue, though, is not only how much the Pentagon is spending, but the bang it's getting for all these bucks. Much of its budget is tied up in big-ticket, high-tech weapons programs, such as the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the Army's "Future Combat Systems" program, and the Navy's next-generation fleet of destroyers and coastal combat vessels. All of these programs are behind schedule and over budget—and of questionable relevance to the needs of today's military.
Take the F-22. The Air Force, which began developing the fighter in 1986, originally intended to buy more than 700 of them to replace its aging fleet of F-15s and F-16s. By 2000, cost overruns led the Pentagon to halve its order to 346. But in 2005, almost 20 years and $40 billion later, the request was lowered again to just 180 aircraft, the consequence of lengthy delays and unanticipated development costs that had pushed the price per airplane from an earlier projection of $184 million to $355 million. To fill the void in inventory, the Air Force has now begun developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which critics say promises a repeat of the F-22 fiasco. "The last I heard, Al Qaeda doesn't have an air force," says Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at Washington's Center for Defense Information and the editor of the forthcoming book America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress. The F-22, which he describes as a "dog" on performance (more fragile and less maneuverable than Vietnam-era fighters), "is ridiculously expensive, and its huge cost prevents you from buying a respectable inventory of them."
But focusing on individual boondoggles like the F-22 is not the solution, says Wheeler. Instead, if Obama hopes to switch things up, he and his aides must understand that cost overruns and development delays at the Pentagon are not the exception but the rule. "I'm all for getting rid of the garbage, but if we simply trot out a cut list, we're going to get killed," Wheeler says. "The advocates [for each weapons program] inside the Pentagon will go on full alert. They'll activate their porker friends inside Congress, and that will be the end of it." Rather, he suggests, change rests on getting decision makers the real, unvarnished information they need to grapple with structural problems inherent in the defense acquisitions system.
Getting that information is not as easy as it might seem. According to retired Marine Lt. Colonel John Sayen, a former Pentagon analyst, the Defense Department's procurement bureaucracy is practiced at pushing its wish list through Congress "by downplaying costs and/or exaggerating benefits" and "quickly building a support network of vested interests to lock in a front-loaded decision before its true costs or performance become apparent." In other words, military procurement is an institutionalized scam. Even when problems surface, Congress rarely interferes. Assembly of the F-22 alone involves spending in 44 states, says Wheeler, and "people on Capitol Hill are leaving drool trails in the hallways to buy more."
Still, there are signs that some in the Pentagon understand that the free-spending days of the past may be ending. The Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel that includes about 20 private-sector executives, recently prepared a series of briefings for the incoming Obama administration, highlighting the Defense Department's runaway budget and acknowledging that it cannot continue. "All indications are that Department is entering a prolonged period of fiscal constraint in a tough economy with deficits increasing and competitive spending pressures," one of the briefing documents reads. "Business as usual is no longer an option. The current and future fiscal environments facing the Department demand bold action."
Will the Obama administration be the one to provide it? The forces of status quo are well positioned within the Pentagon and Congress, so much will depend on whether Obama picks a Pentagon chief who is willing to take on the bureaucracy while the nation is still prosecuting two wars. Among the people rumored to be in line for the job is Richard Danzig, who served as secretary of the navy during the latter years of the Clinton administration. While in that position, Danzig did not earn a reputation as an opponent of Pentagon bloat. "He was a mess as secretary of the Navy," says Wheeler. "That's not the kind of help President Obama will need to clean out the stables." The question remains, when Obama's agenda of change meets the Pentagon, which side will win out?
Bruce Falconer is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, DC, bureau.
It's not cheap being the international bully! Even arms sales haven't helped. Eisenhower warned us not to let the military industrial complex get out of hand...
Didn't the Roman Empire run into the same problem trying to control the world? And wasn't it Constantine who conquered Rome? What will happen to us if we continue on that self-destructive path?
The United States simply can't afford to be in the "regime change business" to satisfy the interests of international corporate busine$$. The Pentagon and the CIA both need to have their budgets cut.
Enough. Let's start realizing that 'peace dividend' promised 15 years ago ...
If it where not for systems like the F-22 we would be dealing with threats far more potent than terrorists.
Next time I will tell you how to miniaturize soldiers.
Chinese.
However, I have loved military aircraft since I was a boy so I do have a soft spot for knowing about their capabilities and general performance. That doesn't mean that I believe we should bankrupt our country to buy them.
My point is this: "The F-22, which he describes as a "dog" on performance (more fragile and less maneuverable than Vietnam-era fighters)
I find this laughable! Two of these things can kick the crap out of an entire squadron of F-15s. In fact, one Discovery channel show pointed out that the F-22 is so good that it is almost too much. In other words, we don't need something so advanced because it is so much better than what we have now. Which I can see as a valid point.
I just wanted to point out that anyone that says that the F-22 is somehow outclassed by Vietnam era planes is a complete idiot when it comes to military aircraft.
Given its much better stealth and a full missile load, I'd expect the F-22s to outshoot a flight of F-15s. The Eagle is a radar flare; no stealth whatsoever. If the Vultures shot from substantially on the deck and on a straight-in vector, to mask their open bay doors, they might each get off several missiles while still outside of effective targeting range for the Eagles. Rinse and repeat.
But note that the above might be true, and still the plane's durability and maneuverability might suck; which of course you don't have to deal with, unless you get into a dog fight...
But if they seriously couldn't turn with a Phantom or A-6, that's a matter of concern, to say the least. The Phantom was a cow.
I'd like to see where that came from. Links?
However, just as in civilian corporations periodic re-evaluation, restructuring, cutting back is a NORMAL process needed to keep competitive.
I believe that in any organization the Peter Principal applies to it as well as its people.
I know, I can hear many saying that defense of our Nation never gets to take a holiday, and that we, DOD, are on duty all the time. I do not think that line of logic obviates the need for periodic reassessment and evaluation.
Show me any organization that does not need to do periodic overhauls. Human nature in corporations builds mini empires. Human nature in corporations says my division is most important. Look at the continual conflict between the scientist/researcher that says, "I create the new product. Without me..." And the sales force that says, "Yeah but without me selling it we would go broke."
Civilian control of the military is good. Outside review creates balance.
"The individual generally cited by most investigators as actually having pulled the trigger on Robert Kennedy was a white supremacist named Thane Eugene Caesar who worked for Lockheed's Burbank facility, and specifically worked in the top secret area associated with the CIA's U-2 project. Oswald also was affiliated with the U-2. Caesar was working as a security guard for a security service in the Ambassador Hotel the night of the shooting. He was a documented white-supremacist and, again, he worked in the Lockheed Burbank facility and another engineer in Lockheed Burbank was Richard Gernt Butler, one of whose top lieutenants was Keith Gilbert, whose name was linked in L.A.P.D. files to Michael Wayne, a Sirhan double, who was in the Ambassador Hotel."
http://www.g2mil.com/FY2010.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/scandal.htm
Its so bad that many Marine Generals secretly want the civlians to cancel it so they can buy helos without admitting to this huge failure.
$10 Billions we spend on useless wars should be spent here in America.
So how about a cabinet level office of peace, much as we have one of war? Or two, if we count energy. Or... to at least bring a little balance, perhaps some discussion?
Brings up the whole issue that goes by the name of the military-industrial-Congressional complex. Very enlightening to read the work of Seymour Melman in this regard. I first became familiar with him twenty years ago having been much influenced by his book, "The Permanent War Economy"; his last, "After Capitalism", published in 2001 a couple years before he died, is definitely worth reading. I hope some of you do, if you haven't already.
Did you know that one of the general
come out screaming about the need for more of new planes & then we found out he was working for on behalf of the mikitary industrial complex !
Military overspending leads to one thing: Public corruption on a potentially very destructive scale. You put enough money on the table, and people literally lose their minds. "Why, SURE, we can get approval for 15 cases of 100% pure stealth-unobtainium butt-gaskets, NO problem!" And, why? Because when it comes budget time, Bush et. al. are there with a Big Stack of Paper, marked 'spending bill' for umpty-hundred bazillion bucks, and the Congressers are just supposed to sign their little 'x' and not ask any questions. All in the name of nashyskirty, don't-cha know, there. Well, I question the whole 9 yards. I think we need to have a military, yes, kind of stands to reason, there, in these 'interesting times'. However, I DON'T think it needs to be splattered halfway across the planet and back, 'cause it starts to stink basically like 'empire', and if you read back in history, EVERYbody hates the empire, and collectively act together to put the socio-economic/military 'smack' down on em, in the end. Plus, empires get unwieldy. Just like you're not going to choose the Griswold Family Truckster over the Fiat Spider for the slalom cone course, getting something as LARGE as our military has become to flip a 180 and respond to some new nefarious form of eeee-villll is probably quite the challenge and generally an undesirable, and fiendishly expensive enterprise.
I submit the question of whether or not it's absolutely necessary to be able to fight multiple wars simultaneously, and the second followup question of what happens when the US economy flushes itself down the toilet in the name of 'defense' and Poland forecloses on 15 of the 50 states for 30 Euros, cash or something. I think the federal budget is grossly overspent, and between run-amok publicly unaccountable 'defense' spending and entitlement and other forms of revenue ejection, we can stack up another trillion without really working at it very hard, and 'defense' isn't the only area that needs well-considered across-the-board cuts in the interest of preserving national fiscal solvency. Bush has had 6 years to nation-build Iraf. Annnnd, it hasn't really quite worked out for him/them. So, at some point, all concerned parties, there are going to have to make the deciderer of at what junc-ture it would be pru-dent to stop throwing more promissory dollars at the problem in hopes that it'll finally shut up and go away, like a Buick with a busted radiator. Let's hear it for no-holds-barred budget renegotiation, and signs that Congress and all other parties understand that people are pretty strapped out there in taxpayer-land, and if the greater part of the Con Me should happen to oh, I don't know, stall out and shut down in its' tracks, then that will raise the question of where 'the government' will raise future revenues to finance the future purchase of aforementioned rockets, bombs, hyperstealthies, butt-gaskets, not to mention salaries for sportertoops and so forth. I hope Obama brings his Return Of The Jedi(TM) red Sharpie veto pen with him to D.C., and that he and Congress and his Cabinet have a field day with the whole 9 yards, there. Might mean short shrift for some folks that are traditionally unaccustomed to it, but then they can 'feel our pain' for a change...and, maybe in the cours of all that, they can figure out how to build airplanes and other war materiel for our military in the United States again at economical prices, and we'll have seen the last of people like Boeing/Air Force contract lady and whatever other fiscal/administrative incest problems that might manifest themselves upon closer inspection, there. Smedley Butler, man, one sharp guy, war IS a racket...score one for Smedley and Eisenhower from beyond the grave, there...
Most of the arguing above is about the wallpaper design on the sinking ship.
Face it everyone. The problem doesn't lie changing what weapons are developed. The problem isn't in that the soldiers get paid squat (though that is a serious problem). It's in the lie that America is of the people, by the people and for the people. America is owned but only by the wealthy few. The ones who own the multinational corporations that direct US policies. That own Congress and the White House.
If you doubt this just look at the evidence. Over 1.5 billion spent on just the presidential election. Each and every federally politician receives campaign support from the fossil fuel industry. Lobbyists outnumber politicians hundreds to one. We invaded another nation based upon lies and it's fine. The president and vice president commit multiple acts of treason and Congress lets it go. Federal politicians openly state that payoffs, corruption, kickbacks, earmarks are all part of running a government. The evidence is too much to list here.
We're looked down upon on by these people who believe themselves to be better than we are. To be controlled, herded, used, abused, sacrificed,.... .
You're living in an empire.
If Obama can make a modest change in our military spending then great, I'm all for it but at the bottom line, it will mean very little.
Sorry, I just needed to rant this morning. My apologies for not doing it very well either.
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.
"When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance," General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in its) ability to get everybody to integrate."
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
If your goal is simply to destroy an area of geography and bounce rubble the smart weapons delivered from aircraft and ships over the horizon are fine. If you need to control geography, create security or suppress an insurgency only a large and capable ground force will do. That means a large, well trained and well equipped Army- exactly the opposite of what the Pentagon has been investing it's efforts and budget in.
Why does our nation have 4 Air Forces- the USAF, Army Aviation, Marine Aviation and Naval Aviation? Why does the Navy have it's own Army- the USMC, originally nothing more than Naval Infantry to be used for boarding ships and small coastal incursions? Why has the Pentagon allowed the Navy, USMC and Air Force to continue to expand their land warfare capabilities under the guise of SOCOM?
Finally, why hasn't anyone asked why an almost 2 million person force struggled to keep 150,000 or so combat forces deployed even with tens of thousands of contractors? Way too many are sitting behind desks or doing ceremonial BS when they should be training and preparing to be a flexible war-fighting force.
So many military programs involve contractors and subcontractors in many states. Congressmen will not vote for anything that takes away those jobs in their states...never mind that those same people could be more productively employed. Just another reason why the U.S. can't compete with other countries...except with military hardware.