U.S. Defense Industry Preventing Effective Strategies in Afghanistan

[unhappycamper]

U.S. Defense Industry Preventing Effective Strategies in Afghanistan
Rep. Mike Honda
Represents the 15th Congressional District of California in the U.S. House
Posted: September 28, 2010 12:30 PM

This month, as the United States begins its 10th year in Afghanistan, the newly formed Afghanistan Study Group published "A New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan."

Composed of analysts from National Defense University, National War College, Harvard, Georgetown, CSIS, New America Foundation, the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Afghanistan Taskforce and others, the report outlines alternative strategies for Afghanistan.

The good news about "A New Way Forward": It initiates a much-needed debate on strategy. Washington's silence is shocking, given that this war breaks records: The longest war in U.S. history, at 107 months and the most expensive war in U.S. history (per soldier), at $1 million per-soldier per-year, totaling $100 billion annually. The bad news: Certain forces will prevent these recommendations from materializing.

Radical rethinking on warfare is rare. There are reasons for this. Pentagon's strategy often reflects the financial interests of the defense industry, a dangerous connection common in other countries, too. U.K.'s recent defense cuts left big-ticket projects favored by defense contractors, such as the $40 billion Joint Strike Fighter, untouched, reducing budgets for piracy and terrorism.

This is unsurprising. Big-ticket items are where the money is, irrespective of what is effective in undermining threats. Since 2000, America's defense budget grew 7 percent annually, correlating positively with money spent by the defense industry lobby, which grew 7 percent in 2010. Defense Secretary Gates's proposed savings of $100 billion, distributed over five years, is not radical. It is a one-time event and minor compared with projected growth. In 2016, when savings expire, defense spending will have grown to more than $1.3 trillion, not including the hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit-funded, war-related "emergencies."

[Scuba]

1. I propose instead of bombs, we drop iPods, MP3 players and other...

...American made products on our "enemies".

I'm willing to be bought and paid for by the makers of such products, to counter the bomb-makers bought-and-paid for congress-critters.

[Supersedeas]

2. Almost as if war is viewed as a economic project with serious employment ramifications

James Baker said that the first Gulf War in Iraq had something to do with "Jobs, jobs, jobs."


In one sense the US is an oil based economy, in another, it might be viewed as a military/guns based economy. Our military spending alone should suggest something about the importance of the tools of combat as an important 'economic' priority.