TPMDC
« ACORN Responds to Steele Screed | Home | You Can Lead A Reporter to Water, But You Can't Make Him Call It A Spending Increase »

Experts Weigh In On Gates With Metaphors--A Step In The Right Direction? Or Bitter Wine.

Here's what we know about the politics of the Pentagon budget proposal so far.

  1. Very few politicians have spoken up in support of it.
  2. Many of the people speaking out against it are portraying it inaccurately as a "soft-on-defense" spending cut.
  3. This meme has found a fairly strong foothold in the media, which has
  4. Given me quite a bit of work to do this week.

But what do experts (those people who make the defense budget and other Pentagon arcana their stock and trade) have to say?

Larry Korb is a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress, but from 1981 through 1985 he served under Ronald Reagan as assistant secretary of defense, where, according to his staff bio, he "administered about 70 percent of the defense budget."

"I think it's a step in the right direction," he says, cautioning that these changes have been "a long time coming."

As far as the 'cuts' meme goes, he's with us--spending is going up: "This is the 11th year in a row it's going up in real terms."

I asked him if he thinks there's an explanation for the meme beyond petty politics and parochial and business interests and he offered some interesting thoughts: "I think basically, the reason is that a lot of people thought that given the economic situation, that you'd just keep building everything regardless--that you'd have it as a stimulus."

He adds, "And you know the cutbacks in the missile defense programs...for Republicans that's kind of a litmus test of loyalty to the Reagan legacy." Gates' cut, though, "is about $1.5 billion--about a 16 percent cut, but what's overlooked is that funding for that was doubled under Bush."

Meanwhile, Winslow Wheeler, Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, colorfully suggests that Gates' proposals aren't really all that radical. "While many decisions were made, the Pentagon-ship of state appears to be very much on the same basic course."

For the defense Department's broken acquisition system, the Secretary's endorsement of the Levin-McCain "procurement reform" bill (now watered down at the Defense Department's urging) means that business as usual is very alive and well. There will be some new bottles for some very old wine, but the bitterness of the taste will still be around as we rush to build untested aircraft (e.g. F-35), endorse problematic, unaffordable ship designs (e.g. LCS), and spend generously to defend against less, not more likely, threats (e.g. missile defense).

For one set of decisions, even if they are unspectacular, Secretary Gates deserves much good credit. He made people his first priority. Hopefully, that was not just rhetorical. The emphasis he put on medical research, caring for the wounded, and family support are all to be greatly commended. I fear, however, that Congress will do little more on this prime issue than simply throw money - as it has in the past.


10 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

"This is the 11th year in a row it's going up in real terms."

Yeah, whatever. This is the first year it's going DOWN in fictional terms.

user-pic

The GOP is truly arguing that "Up is Down" - There is an ad to be made here.

user-pic

On Stewart last night he stated a very interesting M-I-C factoid -

The F-22 has components that are manufactured in key districts in 46 States.

THAT should tell everybody all they need to know about what's going on here.

Now what the Obama Camp should du is turn this around, saying "Everybody is being effected equally as the F-22 has components manufactured in 46 States".

How ridiculous is the M-I-C and no wonder why the DOD budget is so big. Make one component in California, the other in Virginia and then ship them both to North Dakota to be put together and then ship that combined piece down to Texas to have it combined with pieces made in Seattle and New England...

user-pic

Not knowing the history of the F-22 and the process involved with getting it off the ground, doesn't it sound as if the F-22 was the ultimate pandering project? 46 states? WTF?

user-pic

It's common knowledge in government circles that this is deliberate. Military contractors spread out program jobs to as many states as possible specifically to make them hard to kill. They've been doing it for decades.

user-pic

This is how NASA is organized. Not only does it appeal to dreamers, Star-Wars-type-flakes, and the UFO-curious (sorry) instead of producing anything, but also every state (or almost every one) has a piece of the action. It takes three hugely-populous, key-political states just to fly one of the contraptions, management in Texas, takeoff in Florida, landing in California. Tracking is all over the country, and contractors everywhere.

user-pic

As much as that's certainly true, so what? These are extremely complex systems we're talking about and it takes a huge variety of skills and experience to build the many bits and parts that make up the finished aircraft. There is no reasonable expectation that these thousands of different components could (or should) be manufactured in one place.

user-pic

Extremely complex systems that we don't need. Any complex systems we do need e.g., healthcare systems, we can't afford.

user-pic

Not in one place, but "key strategic" districts in 46 different states - That is the M-I-C at work. Look at the shitstorm now, you cut the F-22 and at least 46 House Reps and 92 Senators are going to be hearing it from their constituents.

user-pic

The F-22 has been an albatross for years; note the switch from F to F/A designation in September of 02 precisely to allay questions like, "why are we building a multi-billion dollar air-to-air system when we're fighting dirty ground wars in countries with no air force?" And the congressional coincidence has been an open secret for a long while--Defense procurement is, for reasons such as these, a naturally prickly bureaucracy.

More interesting, and probably wrenching for a Cold Warrior like Gates, was the removal of the Army's FCS systems. As much as they were pipe-dreams for a mechanized future war, they contained some wonderful research goals. For example, the DARPA dream of a fully integrated network of sensors, materiel, and men is a magnificent contribution to battlespace control. I would hope we retain that goal moving forward.

But we ought to be wary of people singing alleluias over the wisdom of robustly asymmetric capacity. There is, always, a trade-off. And what I found most haunting from Gates' press conference were invocations of a hybridized threat--combining conventional support and asymmetric tactical delivery. The idea's been batting around for decades, but to see the Defense Secretary invoke wrath in preparing its defense is disconcerting.

His 10% idea--bringing the Samuel Griffiths and David Galulas of the world back to the table for major procurements--is brilliant, but will Gates' budget (overall) assure military supremacy in a multi-polar age? Doubtful. Perhaps its time we start asking the Brits for advice.

Also, moving forward in this we should guard against ideological bias--conservative or progressive. Damaging assumptions that have restricted our military's adaptability to a post-Cold War age are matched by some progressive quarters emphasizing a nuclear, and only nuclear, focus for our defense. As a young person, I'd like to finally see an end to the concept 'our enemies,' but know that to be a chimera as long as the map looks like this: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address