Budget busters (not cutting Pentagon cold war requests is nuts)

[papau]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-budget8feb08,0,6837957.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
EDITORIAL
Budget busters

February 8, 2006

A NATION AT WAR MUST MAKE difficult choices and endure sacrifice. The soldiers who risk life and limb in Iraq carry the most obvious burden. But those in government must also do their part, by selecting wisely where to direct taxpayer money.

At a time of belt-tightening throughout the federal government, including Medicare and several programs aimed at helping the poor, there is one corner of Washington where hard choices remain unknown: the Pentagon. The shocker in the $2.77-trillion budget proposed Monday by President Bush is that not one big-ticket Pentagon weapons program fell under the same knife that seems to be cutting the rest of us.

The proposed Defense Department budget represents a 5% increase to $439 billion (on paper, at least — the amount does not include the projected cost of at least $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor billions of dollars in defense-related spending hidden in other departments). That $439 billion is not going to significantly affect an American mission that has cost the lives of more than 2,200 U.S. soldiers. No, the significant new spending is needed, the Pentagon says, for weapons systems that have no bearing on the current war.

Military analysts point to several boondoggle projects that deserve the ax. One is the Navy's DD(X) destroyer, produced by Northrop Grumman Corp. for $3 billion each, designed to provide long-range firepower support to ground troops — at least someday. Another is Lockheed Martin's F/A-22 Raptor, a supersonic stealth fighter designed to penetrate Soviet-style radar systems, at a cost of $2.2 billion each.

The Pentagon's recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review fended off repeated criticism from outside analysts that the DD(X) is far more expensive, and possibly less useful, than planes dropping precision-guided bombs. As the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, "the Pentagon decided that the U.S. shipbuilding industry … needed the program."<snip>

[papau]

1. The wrong weapons for the Long War

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot8feb08,0,2073057.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
MAX BOOT
The wrong weapons for the Long War
Max Boot

February 8, 2006

THE DEFENSE Department released two important documents in the last few days — the Quadrennial Defense Review and the defense budget for fiscal year 2007. Unfortunately, they seem to be diametrically at odds with one another.

The QDR — a major overhaul of defense strategy — calls for moving beyond a military configured exclusively for fighting mirror-image adversaries. "In the post-September 11 world, irregular warfare has emerged as the dominant form of warfare confronting the United States, its allies and partners," the QDR states. To win what the QDR calls the "Long War" — nee the Global War on Terror — it calls for strengthening such areas as "counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and stabilization and reconstruction operations."

The old assumption that the armed forces must be ready to fight two conventional adversaries at once has been eliminated. Now the U.S. must be ready for only one conventional foe (say, Iran or North Korea) "if already engaged in a large-scale, long-duration irregular campaign." The QDR acknowledges that concepts such as "swiftly defeating" the enemy may not be applicable in this type of campaign, and that it will call for very different skills from our warriors, who will have to "understand foreign cultures and societies and possess the ability to train, mentor and advise foreign security forces."

This is a welcome reversal of years — make that centuries — of conventional thinking among the upper echelons of the armed forces. But what is the Pentagon doing to realize this bold vision?

The defense budget announces a few positive steps, such as 30% increases in the number of special operations, psychological operations and civil affairs units. Unfortunately, whatever the rhetoric of the QDR, too much of the $439-billion 2007 defense budget is still devoted to conventional weapons platforms left over from the Cold War.

For example, the Pentagon is continuing to fund three ruinously expensive short-range fighters — the F/A-22 Raptor, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — even though we already have total dominance in the air. The entire budget for language and cultural training — $181 million — comes to less than the cost of one F-35.

Also being funded is the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine, with the QDR calling for an eventual increase in its procurement from one sub a year to two. These $2.4-billion subs are now being sold as great tools for gathering intelligence, firing Tomahawk missiles and inserting Special Forces units into enemy waters, but they were designed to fight Soviet subs and surface ships, and that's still what they're best suited for.

Even more ill-suited for irregular warfare are two other ships whose development will eat up untold billions: the CVN-21 and the DD(X), a next-generation aircraft carrier and destroyer, respectively.<snip>