"Suitably handled by Obama, with the right timing...We are now right-sizing according to the threat, and moving faster instead of slower with proven technology instead of hoped-for."
--Uber security analyst Tom Barnett on the Obama BMD change
TW: The usual suspects amongst the conservatives came out shrieking last week when SecDef Gates and POTUS came out with a revised approach to BMD relative to Iran. Just remember many of these critics were the same fools who led us into the morass of Iraq whilst simultaneously taking their eye off the Afghan ball. These sames folks would also have us increase our defense spending even further towards the stratosphere. The knee jerk on the right is to call "pussy/wimp" any move by a Dem on national security. This not only is insulting it is just bad and destructive policy.
We need smarter policy making not louder, harder chest pounding.
From Jamie McIntyre at Line of Departure blog:
"...I’ve...have concluded this is NOT a “shelving” or “scuttling” of European missile defenses, as was widely characterized in reports this morning.
This is more of a recalibration of the plan, which appears designed to downplay, the future land-based system, and possibly fool the Russians into thinking the U.S. has pulled back.
Defense Secretary Gates is as crafty as they come, and the plan he outlined at the Pentagon today sounds like he wants to have his cake and east it, too.
Here’s how he described it:
“In the initial stage we will deploy Aegis ships equipped with SM- 3 interceptors [Standard Missiles], which provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed. The second phase, about 2015, will involve fielding upgraded land based SM-3s. Consultations have begun with allies, starting with Poland and the Czech Republic, about hosting a land-based version of the SM-3 and other components of the system. Basing some interceptors on land will provide additional coverage and save costs compared to a purely sea-based approach.”
Later Gates says, “I would also note that plans to cover most of Europe and add to the defense of the U.S. homeland will continue on about the same schedule as before.”
So while there is an effort to appease the Russians, it looks more like smoke and mirrors, and so I guess Moscow really won’t be all that reassured.
Because while the debate ranges in the U.S. about whether missiles defenses really work, the Russian are area convinced they do, and could potentially someday, neutralize the threat from their vast nuclear arsenal. So to answer my own question, this looks more like a calculation than a capitulation."
http://www.thelineofdeparture.com/2009/09/17/scuttling-the-shield-calculation-or-capitulation/
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Why Ending F-22 Procurement Is So Important
"THE fact that the F-22 program is no longer needed beyond where it stands today, that it is no longer wanted by the most senior civilian and uniformed officials in the Pentagon—exercising their best professional judgment—and that it is simply no longer affordable cannot be disputed. However, in the face of those facts, the full weight of all those interests that have—for a period of over 20 years—become invested in the survival of the program has been brought to bear on the decision-making process on this body today. That is the military-industrial-congressional complex at work."
-- check at bottom for the quotee
From Robert Gates speech to Chicago Econ Club last week:
"...Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22.
Some might ask, why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple of billion dollars and for a dozen or so more -- a dozen or so more planes?
The grim reality is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar devoted to -- diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.
And with regard to something like the F-22, regardless of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 or 200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision -- reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff -- where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can't get this right, what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual. The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto. And it is real..."
TW: Congress is trying to continue funding the F-22 fighter aircraft in the face of opposition from Gates and our POTUS. Obama has threatened a veto if F-22 funding emerges in the new defense spending bills. I sincerely hope he holds the line. There are strong arguments in favor of the F-22 but we cannot have everything at some point tough choices have to be made. The F-22 is a metaphor for government spending in general.
The reason the F-22 remains alive is not overriding military needs but strong political pull exerted by the F-22 manufacturer which cannily (like most contractors) spread F-22 production contracts across as many congressional districts as possible. This is a bi-partisan pork project but where are those allegedly ferocious spending police in the Republican party to help Gates and Obama fend of the budget busters?
It appears, as of yesterday, the Senate has voted to back the Gates/Obama position. Good news. These things tend to have nine lives (at least) so I suspect further votes will be necessary. The quotee btw, Mr. John McCain (Sen AZ) well-known pacifist left-wing weak on defense type.
-- check at bottom for the quotee
From Robert Gates speech to Chicago Econ Club last week:
"...Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22.
Some might ask, why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple of billion dollars and for a dozen or so more -- a dozen or so more planes?
The grim reality is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar devoted to -- diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.
And with regard to something like the F-22, regardless of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 or 200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision -- reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff -- where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can't get this right, what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual. The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto. And it is real..."
TW: Congress is trying to continue funding the F-22 fighter aircraft in the face of opposition from Gates and our POTUS. Obama has threatened a veto if F-22 funding emerges in the new defense spending bills. I sincerely hope he holds the line. There are strong arguments in favor of the F-22 but we cannot have everything at some point tough choices have to be made. The F-22 is a metaphor for government spending in general.
The reason the F-22 remains alive is not overriding military needs but strong political pull exerted by the F-22 manufacturer which cannily (like most contractors) spread F-22 production contracts across as many congressional districts as possible. This is a bi-partisan pork project but where are those allegedly ferocious spending police in the Republican party to help Gates and Obama fend of the budget busters?
It appears, as of yesterday, the Senate has voted to back the Gates/Obama position. Good news. These things tend to have nine lives (at least) so I suspect further votes will be necessary. The quotee btw, Mr. John McCain (Sen AZ) well-known pacifist left-wing weak on defense type.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why Slowing Any Spending Is So Damn Hard (cont.)
TW: Another example of why cutting government spending is like whack a mole. Defense programming being perhaps an especially challenging area. As you may recall Robert Gates, the highly respected Republican Defense Sec., after considerable review actually made some tough choices regarding which defense programs to keep versus trim.
The C-17 transport planes, the presidential helicopters and the F-22 fighters were amongst the trims. All three programs are still alive and I would say likely to be funded by Congress. The arguments the conservative blog below uses are tried and true- "to cut the F-22 'seriously imperils national security' (TW: obviously Gates is a fool unconcerned about national security), 'the Air Force wants them' (TW: shocking that the Air Force general whose units use the F-22 would want more planes), yada yada yada.
Then there is the intellectually bold argument that since another 100 F-22 would only cost about $15 billion ($150 million each incrementally) and we are spending more on many other government programs, why not F-22 instead of pansy things like TARPs and education.
I have been watching defense spending since I was a kid (yes I am a freak and very old), the arguments NEVER change. At some point we need to be able to make choices for defense and many other areas!
From the New Majority blog:
"It looks like the F-22 production line may not fall idle after all. Cracks in the Administration's attempts to kill it are appearing. First...the most important thing—preservation of the production line as a surge capacity in the event of war—appears to have gotten a boost from the House Armed Services Committee, who've allocated $369 million for parts to keep it active...
Second, the Pentagon's line that the "we only need 187 F-22s" policy was driven by military, rather than budgetary, concerns appears to have been proven false, which might change the procurement number sooner rather than later. Aviation Week's Ares blog puts it succinctly: "The USAF did want more F-22s and considered a 180-some force to be a high risk approach, but after the Defense Department provided the service with a new assessment of future wars, the USAF changed its mind...
...The match that might set off the military/political tinderbox around F-22 procurement could well be the June 9 letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, where the plane is built) from four-star Gen. John D.W. Corley, chief of Air Combat Command...two of whose squadrons have flown the F-22 the longest of any units in the USAF). In this letter, Gen. Corley stated flatly: "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term.… To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy." ...This type of insight from a uniformed commander certainly has the potential to change the political dynamics surrounding the F-22. Members of Congress tend to listen to uniformed leaders when they go on record regarding national-security shortfalls."
...In defense spending terms, twenty-six billion is a fairly big number. In domestic-spending terms, particularly in the age of TARP and the trillion-dollar "stimulus," it's chump change. For example, President Obama wants to spend ten billion on new early-childhood education programs and another fifty or sixty billion on the Department of Education, university building projects, etc.
Which leads me to wonder—have we finally reached that great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy its fighter force?
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=1746b2e6-ef8f-4a86-a50d-0def46f1bd95
The C-17 transport planes, the presidential helicopters and the F-22 fighters were amongst the trims. All three programs are still alive and I would say likely to be funded by Congress. The arguments the conservative blog below uses are tried and true- "to cut the F-22 'seriously imperils national security' (TW: obviously Gates is a fool unconcerned about national security), 'the Air Force wants them' (TW: shocking that the Air Force general whose units use the F-22 would want more planes), yada yada yada.
Then there is the intellectually bold argument that since another 100 F-22 would only cost about $15 billion ($150 million each incrementally) and we are spending more on many other government programs, why not F-22 instead of pansy things like TARPs and education.
I have been watching defense spending since I was a kid (yes I am a freak and very old), the arguments NEVER change. At some point we need to be able to make choices for defense and many other areas!
From the New Majority blog:
"It looks like the F-22 production line may not fall idle after all. Cracks in the Administration's attempts to kill it are appearing. First...the most important thing—preservation of the production line as a surge capacity in the event of war—appears to have gotten a boost from the House Armed Services Committee, who've allocated $369 million for parts to keep it active...
Second, the Pentagon's line that the "we only need 187 F-22s" policy was driven by military, rather than budgetary, concerns appears to have been proven false, which might change the procurement number sooner rather than later. Aviation Week's Ares blog puts it succinctly: "The USAF did want more F-22s and considered a 180-some force to be a high risk approach, but after the Defense Department provided the service with a new assessment of future wars, the USAF changed its mind...
...The match that might set off the military/political tinderbox around F-22 procurement could well be the June 9 letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, where the plane is built) from four-star Gen. John D.W. Corley, chief of Air Combat Command...two of whose squadrons have flown the F-22 the longest of any units in the USAF). In this letter, Gen. Corley stated flatly: "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term.… To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy." ...This type of insight from a uniformed commander certainly has the potential to change the political dynamics surrounding the F-22. Members of Congress tend to listen to uniformed leaders when they go on record regarding national-security shortfalls."
...In defense spending terms, twenty-six billion is a fairly big number. In domestic-spending terms, particularly in the age of TARP and the trillion-dollar "stimulus," it's chump change. For example, President Obama wants to spend ten billion on new early-childhood education programs and another fifty or sixty billion on the Department of Education, university building projects, etc.
Which leads me to wonder—have we finally reached that great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy its fighter force?
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=1746b2e6-ef8f-4a86-a50d-0def46f1bd95
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Bob Gates Does the Near Impossible
TW: Gates has become a true bi-partisan. He is weaving his way through two very different POTUSes seemingly with ease. He is putting his stamp firmly on the national security policies of the U.S. He clearly knows how to work the bureaucracies known as the U.S. government and Pentagon. He is also benefiting immensely from what Klein refers to as to be that "unbound, fearless advisor" without future ambitions (not so sure he is truly in his twilight).
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gates v. Rumsfeld
TW: What makes Gates the most respected Defense Secretary in decades and Rumsfeld a pinata for left and right? They both have tried to reform a very difficult to reform entity, the Pentagon/Defense Dept., which inevitably leads to blow back from Pentagon supporters in Congress and elsewhere. They both have built reputations as autocratic
This piece boils it down to personality, one was a complete asshole the other not as much. It appears how one goes about leadership matters as much or more than where one is leading. An obvious point but one that continuously receives less credit than it deserves.
From author Brad Graham via the Tom Ricks blog:
"It does appear that Gates, who after succeeding Rumsfeld seemed bent on setting himself apart from his predecessor in approach and tone, has in some ways come to mirror him. The micromanaging and the overruling of the military chiefs are just a couple of examples...
But in personal style, Gates has remained distinctly different from Rumsfeld, and this has been a key to his success. He has shown little of the arrogance, the dismissiveness, the discourtesy of his predecessor. He has managed to convey firmness and decisiveness without being overbearing and offensive. Most significantly, he has restored a measure of accountability without breeding deep resentment and making himself unpopular. While Rumsfeld in six years fired only one top official (Tom White), Gates in two-and-a-half years has already removed six (Harvey, Pace, Fallon, Wynn, Moseley and McKiernan). And yet Gates has none of the bullying, domineering image that Rumsfeld seemed to cultivate. Rather, he has demonstrated an ability to exercise strong civilian leadership with reason and just cause.
Significantly, too, Gates has brought a sense of balance to a Pentagon that Rumsfeld had kept in a swirl. His lack of flare and self-promotion have been a relief after the theatrics of his predecessor. In the Rumsfeld tradition, Gates has persisted in prodding the military to think outside its box. But he has taken a quieter approach and, at the same time, refocused the military transformation process. He talks less about what might be needed for future wars, placing more emphasis on current needs and on how to wage unconventional warfare better.
You didn't ask, but the question of Rumsfeld versus McNamara also may be of interest, since McNamara is the only other Pentagon leader whose term rivals Rumsfeld's for controversy. Both Rumsfeld and McNamara came to the Pentagon from the corporate world exhibiting arrogance and impatience, and both showed similar characteristics in office: keen analytical minds, insatiable appetites for data, predilections for new methods and approaches for problem solving. McNamara may have been more soullessly analytical, and Rumsfeld more intuitive, but both sought tighter civilian control of the military and ordered reappraisals of U.S. strategy. Both also brought with them contingents of civilian aides who shared their determination to shake things up and a propensity to clash with the Joint Chiefs. And both became embroiled in unpopular wars."
Where they differed most notably was in how they ultimately viewed their own tenures. Despite his public cheerleading for the Vietnam War, McNamara privately became dubious about its wisdom and effectiveness while still in office. In later years, he increasingly recognized that he had failed as defense secretary because of mistakes he and others had made in Vietnam. By contrast, Rumsfeld did not leave office doubting his handling of the Iraq War. He has acknowledged no major missteps or shown any remorse on the subject to date. Asked in my final interview with him last fall whether he harbored any regrets, Rumsfeld sounded tired of such queries. "Oh, that's the favorite press question," he quipped."
This piece boils it down to personality, one was a complete asshole the other not as much. It appears how one goes about leadership matters as much or more than where one is leading. An obvious point but one that continuously receives less credit than it deserves.
From author Brad Graham via the Tom Ricks blog:
"It does appear that Gates, who after succeeding Rumsfeld seemed bent on setting himself apart from his predecessor in approach and tone, has in some ways come to mirror him. The micromanaging and the overruling of the military chiefs are just a couple of examples...
But in personal style, Gates has remained distinctly different from Rumsfeld, and this has been a key to his success. He has shown little of the arrogance, the dismissiveness, the discourtesy of his predecessor. He has managed to convey firmness and decisiveness without being overbearing and offensive. Most significantly, he has restored a measure of accountability without breeding deep resentment and making himself unpopular. While Rumsfeld in six years fired only one top official (Tom White), Gates in two-and-a-half years has already removed six (Harvey, Pace, Fallon, Wynn, Moseley and McKiernan). And yet Gates has none of the bullying, domineering image that Rumsfeld seemed to cultivate. Rather, he has demonstrated an ability to exercise strong civilian leadership with reason and just cause.
Significantly, too, Gates has brought a sense of balance to a Pentagon that Rumsfeld had kept in a swirl. His lack of flare and self-promotion have been a relief after the theatrics of his predecessor. In the Rumsfeld tradition, Gates has persisted in prodding the military to think outside its box. But he has taken a quieter approach and, at the same time, refocused the military transformation process. He talks less about what might be needed for future wars, placing more emphasis on current needs and on how to wage unconventional warfare better.
You didn't ask, but the question of Rumsfeld versus McNamara also may be of interest, since McNamara is the only other Pentagon leader whose term rivals Rumsfeld's for controversy. Both Rumsfeld and McNamara came to the Pentagon from the corporate world exhibiting arrogance and impatience, and both showed similar characteristics in office: keen analytical minds, insatiable appetites for data, predilections for new methods and approaches for problem solving. McNamara may have been more soullessly analytical, and Rumsfeld more intuitive, but both sought tighter civilian control of the military and ordered reappraisals of U.S. strategy. Both also brought with them contingents of civilian aides who shared their determination to shake things up and a propensity to clash with the Joint Chiefs. And both became embroiled in unpopular wars."
Where they differed most notably was in how they ultimately viewed their own tenures. Despite his public cheerleading for the Vietnam War, McNamara privately became dubious about its wisdom and effectiveness while still in office. In later years, he increasingly recognized that he had failed as defense secretary because of mistakes he and others had made in Vietnam. By contrast, Rumsfeld did not leave office doubting his handling of the Iraq War. He has acknowledged no major missteps or shown any remorse on the subject to date. Asked in my final interview with him last fall whether he harbored any regrets, Rumsfeld sounded tired of such queries. "Oh, that's the favorite press question," he quipped."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Why Slowing Any Spending Is So Damn Hard (cont.)
TW: Yesterday I posted on reason #1, slowing defense is so hard- "any time someone proposes the slightest slowdown they are accused of leaving 'Merica open to the enemy". Today's post shows reason #2- "defense not being stupid, spread their production across as many congressional districts as humanly possible, thereby creating a nice little interest group for almost every defense procurement program".
Reason #2 is extremely powerful, bi-partisan and largely immune to rational defense needs. What the armed forces or a POTUS assert as needed fade quickly to secondary importance. Folks whine about the politicians but they are merely reflecting the parochial interests of their constituents, regardless of party folks are happy to cut spending as long as it is not THEIR spending.
From Chicago Tribune:
"In a victory for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the House included $2.2 billion for eight more C-17s in a war-spending bill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called for ending production once the last plane on order rolls off the Long Beach, Calif., assembly line in 2011 as part of a sweeping Pentagon spending reform push.
...But the plane's supporters had reason to be hopeful as a result of the committee chairman's response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who pleaded for funding.
"The senator has good reason to be optimistic," Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said, suggesting money for the plane is likely to be forthcoming. "I have been and remain a strong supporter of the C-17 program, and I am committed to finding a responsible way to maintain the program."...The fight is seen as a key test of Obama's budget-cutting efforts in the face of lawmakers looking out for their home-state interests. "Once they get used to overriding the president," Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense policy analyst, said of Congress, "they'll keep doing it."
The plane, in production since the early 1990s, has the backing of odd-bedfellows, from liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). A key reason: Its aircraft parts come from more than 650 suppliers in 43 states." The plane's landing gear comes from Cleveland; its cockpit, nose and cargo ramp and door from St. Louis; engines from Connecticut; avionics from Binghamton, N.Y.; tail sections and engine coverings from Dallas; seats from Phoenix; and so on. The plane provides more than 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and another 15,000 elsewhere in California.
..."Congress is mainly concerned about protecting jobs," Thompson said, pausing, "and votes."
...Top Air Force leaders said Thursday that they simply do not need more cargo planes and that they had far more pressing priorities on which to spend money.Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said the Air Force has 316 large transport aircraft, including the C-17 and C-5 fleets.
A 2005 study said that inventory was sufficient, and a new study due to be completed in the fall will likely reach the same conclusion, Schwartz said.Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said if more air mobility is needed it will be cheaper to modernize more of the older C-5 aircraft than build new planes."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_boeing_may15,0,1195862.story
Reason #2 is extremely powerful, bi-partisan and largely immune to rational defense needs. What the armed forces or a POTUS assert as needed fade quickly to secondary importance. Folks whine about the politicians but they are merely reflecting the parochial interests of their constituents, regardless of party folks are happy to cut spending as long as it is not THEIR spending.
From Chicago Tribune:
"In a victory for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the House included $2.2 billion for eight more C-17s in a war-spending bill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called for ending production once the last plane on order rolls off the Long Beach, Calif., assembly line in 2011 as part of a sweeping Pentagon spending reform push.
...But the plane's supporters had reason to be hopeful as a result of the committee chairman's response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who pleaded for funding.
"The senator has good reason to be optimistic," Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said, suggesting money for the plane is likely to be forthcoming. "I have been and remain a strong supporter of the C-17 program, and I am committed to finding a responsible way to maintain the program."...The fight is seen as a key test of Obama's budget-cutting efforts in the face of lawmakers looking out for their home-state interests. "Once they get used to overriding the president," Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense policy analyst, said of Congress, "they'll keep doing it."
The plane, in production since the early 1990s, has the backing of odd-bedfellows, from liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). A key reason: Its aircraft parts come from more than 650 suppliers in 43 states." The plane's landing gear comes from Cleveland; its cockpit, nose and cargo ramp and door from St. Louis; engines from Connecticut; avionics from Binghamton, N.Y.; tail sections and engine coverings from Dallas; seats from Phoenix; and so on. The plane provides more than 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and another 15,000 elsewhere in California.
..."Congress is mainly concerned about protecting jobs," Thompson said, pausing, "and votes."
...Top Air Force leaders said Thursday that they simply do not need more cargo planes and that they had far more pressing priorities on which to spend money.Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said the Air Force has 316 large transport aircraft, including the C-17 and C-5 fleets.
A 2005 study said that inventory was sufficient, and a new study due to be completed in the fall will likely reach the same conclusion, Schwartz said.Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said if more air mobility is needed it will be cheaper to modernize more of the older C-5 aircraft than build new planes."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_boeing_may15,0,1195862.story
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Why Cutting Any Spending Is So Damn Hard
TW: I am posting a couple of things on defense spending. There are two primary reasons why slowing the rate of growth in defense spending is insanely difficult. Reason #1 is: "any time someone proposes the slightest slowdown they are accused of leaving 'Merica open to the enemy" (tomorrow will post #2).
This has been going on since WWII (before that we meandered more or less blissfully amidst our own isolationism whilst the heathens and Europeans messed amongst themselves). Until about 1990 any hint of lessening the growth was met with ferocious accusations of leaving "Merica vulnerable to the Commies", since 9/11 the Commies have been replaced by Jihadists with the Chinese now emerging as the next great engine to expand defense spending.
Defense spending is a metaphor for all federal spending, everyone bitches about spending too much but few, far too few, are willing to step up and assume responsibility for spending less. Our own armed forces, POTUS and the most highly respected Defense Secretary in decades oppose adding more of these particular programs...and yet.
From Fred Kaplan at Slate:
"...Gates was presenting what he called a "reform budget," reflecting the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, emphasizing the needs of today over the dubious musings of what might be needed 20 years from now, and recognizing that money is far from limitless.
The legislators, especially some Republicans (and Joe Lieberman), were wringing their hands as if Gates' budget—more than a half-trillion dollars, not counting another $130 billion to sustain the two wars we're fighting—amounted to a pittance and as if even slight cuts in marginal weapons systems would plunge America into serious danger.
Take the secretary's exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. Sessions was worked up over cuts in the missile defense program. Gates was cutting back the number of Alaska-based interceptors from 44 to 30; he was canceling the multiple-kill vehicle and the airborne laser. What, Sessions asked, is going on here?
Gates replied that he's supported missile defense ever since President Reagan started the program back in 1983 but that the Pentagon had to consider practicalities. The Alaska interceptors are good for one thing—shooting down missiles launched from North Korea—and 30 interceptors are more than enough to deal with that (still hypothetical) threat. The multiple-kill vehicle was designed during the Cold War to ward off a huge attack by the Soviet Union. The policy for the past eight years has been to counter small attacks by rogue nations or terrorists, so a weapon designed to shoot down lots of missiles at once isn't needed, even if it were to work (which, though he didn't say so, is extremely unlikely). The airborne laser—a 747 airplane fitted with a laser beam that would destroy enemy missiles as they blasted out of their silos, before they entered outer space—has a basic conceptual problem. First, we would have to buy 28 planes just to keep enough of them in the air at one time. Second, to get within range of the enemy missile bases, they'd have to loiter inside the airspace of, say, Iran and North Korea—and that just isn't going to happen.
Finally, Gates was recommending a mere 10 percent cut in the missile-defense program, from $10 billion to $9 billion. This was hardly a slash job.
...The salient fact is that Gates had scrutinized the program and taken out elements that were plainly unnecessary or absurd. Sessions was looking at the program as an abstraction and its budget-figure as a symbolic show of strength. If this were anything other than the defense budget, Sessions would be derided as a paragon of senseless waste.
As Gates put it, a lot of the cuts he'd imposed were "kind of no-brainers … poster children for an acquisition program gone wrong..."
http://www.slate.com/id/2218407/pagenum/all/#p2
Friday, May 8, 2009
Moving On With Our National Security
TW: I had never heard of Ms. Flournoy but the sentiment seems good and a nice change from the recent past for sure. Gates continues to get rave reviews and is providing beaucoup cover as Obama pushes the envelop on some national security matters but all signs are that he will not stay through the full-term (or two...). Folks like Flournoy will need to build up sufficient reputations to step into those shoes at some point.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy:
"Michele Flournoy, the second most powerful person at the Pentagon nowadays...likes the rule of law.
"The United States must exemplify respect for the rule of law. We have to stop invoking American exceptionalism and return to our historical role as champion of the rule of law both domestically and internationally."
Nice idea, but I am not sure how get we from here -- where torture was made national policy -- to there. There is a lot of "do whatever it takes" disrespect for law embedded in the last seven years of American history that the administration doesn't seem very interested in cleaning up.
She also is...for multilateralism. I think the test of this will be the first time we do something unpopular at home because our allies really really really...want us to. I don't know what that might be. Maybe sign up to the International War Crimes Tribunal?
She has an interesting take on "the commons," and the role the U.S. military should play in policing it. "We see increasing tensions in the global commons: the sea, space, cyberspace and so forth. These are really the connective tissue of the international system and of our global society. And we must ensure access to these shared resources remains open." Are you listening, Navy and Air Force?
...One Army colonel posed an interesting question: Okay, what would you call this strategy? It's a good question. Flournoy didn't have an answer, and neither do I. Basically, it sounds like a plan for a mature national security policy.
I expect Robert Gates to step down as defense secretary about a year from now. Might he be succeeded by Ms. Flournoy?"
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy:
"Michele Flournoy, the second most powerful person at the Pentagon nowadays...likes the rule of law.
"The United States must exemplify respect for the rule of law. We have to stop invoking American exceptionalism and return to our historical role as champion of the rule of law both domestically and internationally."
Nice idea, but I am not sure how get we from here -- where torture was made national policy -- to there. There is a lot of "do whatever it takes" disrespect for law embedded in the last seven years of American history that the administration doesn't seem very interested in cleaning up.
She also is...for multilateralism. I think the test of this will be the first time we do something unpopular at home because our allies really really really...want us to. I don't know what that might be. Maybe sign up to the International War Crimes Tribunal?
She has an interesting take on "the commons," and the role the U.S. military should play in policing it. "We see increasing tensions in the global commons: the sea, space, cyberspace and so forth. These are really the connective tissue of the international system and of our global society. And we must ensure access to these shared resources remains open." Are you listening, Navy and Air Force?
...One Army colonel posed an interesting question: Okay, what would you call this strategy? It's a good question. Flournoy didn't have an answer, and neither do I. Basically, it sounds like a plan for a mature national security policy.
I expect Robert Gates to step down as defense secretary about a year from now. Might he be succeeded by Ms. Flournoy?"
Friday, December 5, 2008
Governing From the Center: Because It Works
TW: As we have discussed on the blog, Obama is appointing centrists in order to execute his vision, a vision which will be the most progressive in decades. The Economist piece reviewing a Robert Gates article in Foreign Affairs demonstrates the concept- Gates can articulate progressive policies without incurring the knee jerk vitriol of the right. Again the Kossack hordes should be patient and the right-wing nuts nervous but most of all everyone else encouraged.
From the Economist:
"ROBERT GATES, writing in Foreign Affairs, says
'Direct military force will continue to play a role in the long-term effort against terrorists and other extremists. But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies'
Could a Democrat have written that—especially the line about addressing grievances—without being criticised as weak on terror? Probably not. Also note how Mr Gates takes direct aim at his predecessor's early tactics.
'We should look askance at idealistic, triumphalist, or ethnocentric notions of future conflict that aspire to transcend the immutable principles and ugly realities of war, that imagine it is possible to cow, shock, or awe an enemy into submission, instead of tracking enemies down hilltop by hilltop, house by house, block by bloody block.' "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/why_obama_kept_gates.cfm
From the Economist:
"ROBERT GATES, writing in Foreign Affairs, says
'Direct military force will continue to play a role in the long-term effort against terrorists and other extremists. But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies'
Could a Democrat have written that—especially the line about addressing grievances—without being criticised as weak on terror? Probably not. Also note how Mr Gates takes direct aim at his predecessor's early tactics.
'We should look askance at idealistic, triumphalist, or ethnocentric notions of future conflict that aspire to transcend the immutable principles and ugly realities of war, that imagine it is possible to cow, shock, or awe an enemy into submission, instead of tracking enemies down hilltop by hilltop, house by house, block by bloody block.' "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/why_obama_kept_gates.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)