6/25/09

The White House issued its first veto threat yesterday, telling members of Congress that the president would not approve a defense budget containing wasteful Cold War-era weapons.  President Obama and Secretary Gates are attempting to move the Pentagon in a direction that better prepares and equips our forces for both the challenges they are in and the 21st century challenges they are most likely to confront.  After eight years of the Bush administration not making any tough choices, the Obama administration has laid out a strategy, set its priorities, and is making the tough tradeoffs.

Yet old habits – and weapons systems – die hard. Conservatives and defense industry lobbyists – many still tied to a Cold War-era strategic approach -- are out in force to protect programs that do little to protect America.  Under this immense pressure, members of the House and Senate have reinserted money into the Defense Authorization bill to save the unnecessary F-22. Many have pointed to job losses if the program is cut. But defense experts and economists point out that the defense budgets ballooned 65 percent in the past eight years – with little improvement to our security, as billions have been wasted on irrelevant weapons programs – a costly and inefficient way to create jobs. In any case, production of the F-35 – a more cost-effective fighter – would be ramped up to replace the F-22, creating jobs in the process. Furthermore, the F-22 is an air- to air fighter designed to take on the next generation of Soviet fighters that were never built.  This plane has never been used and has no utility for the conflicts we are in or the conflicts we are likely to face. Spending money on the F-22 takes away vital resources from weapon systems crucial to the security of our troops on the ground. The defense budget outlined by Secretary Gates is the first significant step toward rebalancing our priorities and moving in a new strategic direction. It is past time that the Pentagon and Congress move beyond the Cold War and into the 21st century.

President threatens to veto defense authorization with wasteful programs. Politico reports, “The Obama administration made it clear Wednesday it will veto any defense authorization bill that includes money for additional F-22 Raptor fighter jets or that cuts money for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet program… ‘If the final bill presented to the president contains this provision, the president’s senior advisers would recommend a veto,’ the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a statement of administration policy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed killing the F-22 program after this year. OMB handed down a similar threat to the House bill’s provision calling for the development of an alternate engine on the Joint Strike Fighter program.”  Defense budget expert Gordon Adams wrote earlier in the year that, “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is said to be seriously considering cutting major weapons programs in the new defense budget.  If so, it is a worthy step.  The budget is over-burdened with systems we no longer need (more F-22s) and some that are bearing no promise (FCS, for example).” Retired military leaders also support the president’s decisions to eliminate these wasteful programs.  As 13 retired generals and admirals, representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, wrote to Congress earlier this month, “The budget laid out by Secretary Gates will help bring the military into the 21st century and move us beyond the legacy of the Cold War. We commend the decisions by the Secretary to cut unnecessary and wasteful programs and to emphasize systems that will not only help the United States win the wars it is in but will better prepare it for the wars of the future.” [Politico, 6/25/09. Gordon Adams, 3/17/09. National Security Network, 6/10/09]

New defense budget represents a needed strategic shift that will finally bring the Pentagon into the 21st century, while addressing America’s challenges and protecting our troops.  13 retired generals and admirals, representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, called on members of Congress to support the Gates budget, stating,  that “[t]he threats against America have undergone a monumental shift, as dangers emanating from traditional Cold War adversaries have given way to challenges from terrorism and other transnational entities.  While we must always remain vigilant against the many large-scale conventional challenges that still persist to this day, we must also ensure our military strategy reflects the realities of 21st century. And it is essential our defense budget matches this new reality.”  Gates explained the shift this way: an “underlying theme in the budget recommendations is the need to think about future conflicts in a different way, to recognize that the black-and-white distinction between conventional war and irregular war is an outdated model. In reality, the future is and will be more complex, where all conflict will range along a broad spectrum of operations and lethality, where even near-peer competitors will use irregular or asymmetric tactics, and non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles.”  Gates continued, “In all, we have to be prepared for the wars we are most likely to fight, not just the wars we've traditionally been best suited to fight or threats we conjure up from potential adversaries who also have limited resources.  And as I've said before, even when considering challenges from nation states with modern militaries, the answer is not necessarily buying more technologically advanced versions of what we built on land, sea and in the air to stop the Soviets during the Cold War.” This strategic shift is not only the right course for keeping America secure, it will also help protect American troops already in harm’s way.  Last month the Washington Post wrote that Gates’ budget is forcing “the [Defense] department to focus more of its energy on developing arms and equipment that can help troops on the ground as they battle insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq.”  This is a sharp contrast with the budget’s opponents, who seem to expect the Administration to stay on autopilot. [National Security Network, 6/10/09. Secretary Gates, 4/16/09. Secretary Gates, 4/21/08. Secretary Gates, Parameters, Summer 2008. Secretary Gates, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. Washington Post, 5/15/09]

Congress is slow to recognize this strategic shift.  Last week the Washington Post reported on the move that sparked the president’s veto threat, writing, “Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-22 program got an unexpected lift Wednesday after House lawmakers approved $369 million to continue production of the radar-evading fighter jets.  The surprise amendment, likely to reopen a debate over the necessity of the Cold War planes that cost $140 million each, was approved by the House Armed Services Committee. Republicans largely backed the measure and were joined by a handful of Democrats in a 31-30 vote. The extra funding was adopted as part of the 2010 Defense Department spending bill mark-up. The bill still needs to make its way through the full House and Senate… Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed buying 187 of the planes. But that's dozens fewer than Lockheed and its supporters in Congress had hoped for.  Part of Gates' proposed $534 billion defense budget represents a shift away from outdated, Cold War weapon systems to futuristic programs aimed at unconventional foes.  Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, proposed the request that passed Wednesday, which would provide initial funding for 12 more planes.”  In addition, Politico reports, that “Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, has a major stake in the fighter program because the F-22 engines are made in his district.”  This debate has also led some in Congress to hyperbole. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) likened the never-used F-22 to a handgun: “We absolutely need 381 of these planes, and not 187… I have a .44 Magnum that I keep under my pillow every night for the last 15 years. Everybody knows I've got and I haven't had to use it. It's the same thing with this F-22 Raptor.” Gingrey went on to add “if you cancel this program you are going to eliminate 100,000 jobs.” But Gordon Adams refutes this. “Moreover, the employment effects of not continuing a program are routinely overstated.  Even Lockheed is coming down off the 95,000 number they claimed for the F-22. Defense jobs are high paying, high technology jobs, not like road and bridge-building.  These technical workers are very fully employed people right now and, given the rough doubling of the procurement budget over the past eight years, the opportunity for shifting from program A to Program B (see F-22 and F-35) is high.” [Washington Post, 6/17/09. Phil Gingrey, 6/24/09. Politico, 6/25/09. Gordon Adams, 3/17/09]

What We’re Reading

The deaths of three German soldiers in Afghanistan leads German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit with Obama  in Washington on Friday. Advisors state that the discussions will mostly revolve around the environment, crisis in Iran, and global economy.

As US troops prepare to withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki calls the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq a “great victory,” comparing it to the rebellion against British troops in 1920. U.S military officials are concerned about the safety of American troops and Iraqi civilians. Closing the inner-city bases along with restrictive guidelines will leave them more vulnerable, while nine are killed and 25 injured Friday by suicide bomber on motorcycle in Baghdad.

Iranian opposition presidential candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi responds to his defeat with an attack on supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for not acting in the interest of the Iranian people. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demands an apology from ObamaIsraeli concerns about Iran's nuclear program for allegations of interference in Iranian affairs and criticism of Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators. The protests over the election in Iran have raised the thought of a weakened regime, but hardly curbs or its support for militant groups in the region.

Nandan M. Nilekani, a founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies, takes on a new government project to ensure every citizen of India has an ID card within three years.

On Thursday Hamas welcomed “new Language” from President Obama.

Arab activists like Mohamed Sharkawy lament what Iranians have achieved in 10 days compared to Egypt's democracy movement.

The White House announced that Special Envoy Dennis Ross will move from the State Department to the NSC, as a senior director, and as a special assistant to the president responsible for coordinate the US’ Middle East policy.

The State Department announced that the US and Venezuela have formally agreed to resume full diplomatic relations.

Commentary of the Day

Lt. Gen. Frank G. Helmick argues that the role of U.S. forces in Iraq will continue to transition their focus on advising Iraqi forces instead of fighting terrorism directly.

Natan Sharansky describes the massive revolt of Iranian citizens and how it has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators.

The Financial Times discusses how the US and UK governments are concerned by one of the 21st century’s biggest security risks: the threat of cyber attacks.