Defense Secretary Scores Spending Cuts, But Not Satisfied: "It Would Be Nice To Win Our Current Wars"

RICHARD LARDNER | 07/25/09 11:13 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE - This undated file photo provided by Northrop Grumman Corp., shows a pre-production model of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (AP Photo/Northrop Grumman, FILE)

WASHINGTON — Robert Gates is on a roll. Question is, how long will it last?

The politically savvy defense secretary scored big legislative wins when the Senate voted convincingly to end production of the high-priced F-22 jet fighter and killed an aircraft engine project that he says isn't needed.

Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, is on a campaign to change the way the Pentagon does business. In his sights are unnecessary or financially troubled weapons that siphon money away from the troops and gear required for irregular wars now being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yet getting Capitol Hill to go along with further deep cuts to big-ticket programs remains a huge challenge as lawmakers claw to protect the jobs these projects create in their states and districts. Others have serious disagreements with the Obama administration's strategic choices.

Case in point: House lawmakers want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for equipment Gates doesn't want, including more than $400 million for the VH-71 presidential helicopter that the Pentagon wants canceled for being behind schedule and vastly over budget.

"It's the rarest occasion when a mature weapons system, with all the contracts and subcontracts, is terminated by the Congress of the United States," Republican Sen. John McCain, who voted in favor of killing the F-22, said recently.

Those hoping the defense budget will be purged of Cold War-style weapons look to be disappointed.

Iran and North Korea are perceived threats in the short run, and superpowers China and Russia still loom as potential threats over time. That means the U.S. arsenal will remain loaded with aircraft carriers, ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, tanks and long-range bombers like the durable B-52 of Cold War-vintage.

Story continues below
advertisement

What Gates wants is a better balance between the heavy weapons for a large-scale war and the needs of ground troops going into their ninth year of combat against unconventional foes. For too long, he and his senior advisers have argued, those pressing demands have taken a back seat.

"It would be nice to win our current wars," Michael Vickers, the Pentagon's top special operations official, said Thursday.

The grounding of the $65 billion F-22 program that played out last week was aided by special circumstances, according to defense policy analysts.

The Obama White House used substantial political capital to stop F-22 production at 187 aircraft, threatening to veto any legislation that included money for more new planes. It's unlikely such an effort will often be repeated given the stuttering economy, health care reform and other serious challenges the administration needs Capitol Hill's help with.

"They've got bigger fish to fry," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.

Lockheed Martin, the large and influential defense contractor that makes the F-22, didn't lobby to keep the production line open. That's perhaps because the company also builds the F-35, an aircraft built for ground attack missions that Gates says is better suited for the uncertainties of unconventional warfare.

The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps plan to buy more than 2,400 F-35s.

And the Air Force's top leadership, which backed Gates on the F-22, may not be so cooperative with other moves to drop major weapons from its budget.

"It's very hard for the stars to align in a constellation that allow a hardware program to be terminated," said Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration budget official who specializes in defense issues. "They just happened to align very nicely here."

Aside from its reputation as the world's most advanced jet fighter, the F-22 has strong backing in Congress because hundreds of companies in dozens of states are involved in its production. The most prominent are Georgia, Texas, California and Connecticut.

The Senate's decision on the F-22 isn't the final word. There's a push in the House of Representatives to buy more planes. But Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has indicated the fight is all but over.

"I am considerably dubious about moving forward to fund the F-22 in light of the administration's opposition to it," he said Wednesday.

Obey's committee, though, has challenged Gates' recommendations on several other projects.

Its version of the 2010 defense budget includes money for the presidential helicopter, $674 million for the Air Force's C-17 cargo jet, nine additional F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, and $560 million for an alternative F-35 engine – a project the Senate also voted to end as Gates wanted.

The helicopter money was sought primarily by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., whose congressional district includes a Lockheed Martin Corp. factory where the aircraft are being assembled.

Lawmakers defend the moves, saying the Defense Department is being too quick to shut down programs U.S. taxpayers have invested heavily in. Close to $3.2 billion has been spent on the presidential helicopter and another $2.5 billion on the reserve engine, they say.

"You can't keep spending (money) on research and not get anything out of it," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

Gates would need at least two full terms as defense secretary to curb the influence Congress wields over the military's procurement system, said Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

"You're not going to take politics out of the way we buy weapons," Thompson said.

It may be different story inside the Pentagon, said William Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

It is significant that Gates, backed by President Barack Obama's veto threat, didn't strike a back room deal and allow a few more planes to be built to mollify F-22 proponents in Congress, he said.

Top military leaders "saw that the secretary of defense and the president of the United States, having drawn a line, stuck with it," Nash said. "That will bring a discipline, I think, into the building."

__

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/

WASHINGTON — Robert Gates is on a roll. Question is, how long will it last? The politically savvy defense secretary scored big legislative wins when the Senate voted convincingly to end product...
WASHINGTON — Robert Gates is on a roll. Question is, how long will it last? The politically savvy defense secretary scored big legislative wins when the Senate voted convincingly to end product...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
92
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- ohyes I'm a Fan of ohyes 7 fans permalink

These are not wars, they are occupations and it's lives/money down a rabbit hole.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 07/26/2009

War is a luxury we can no longer afford.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 07/26/2009
photo

Cmon Bill, go with the army you got!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 07/26/2009
- KriTiKiT I'm a Fan of KriTiKiT 42 fans permalink
photo

wining for the sake of winning is the problem...
that is how you loose...

war HAS TO BE NOBEL.
or its just a puppy versus pitbull...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 07/26/2009
- hark I'm a Fan of hark 115 fans permalink

"It would be nice to win our current wars?"

What is this, the latest Yankee, Bosox series?

Maybe take two out of three, only we already lost Vietnam and Iraq. Best we can do is take the third against Afghanistan.

And what does "win" mean? These are occupations. Half the people don't want us there. That's who we are fighting. There isn't any "enemy," other than those who are resisting our invasion of their country. That's the way it always is when you conquer a country. Half the people roll over for you, from which you create your puppet government, and the other half fight you, try to kick you out.

We need a new mindset, one that doesn't start wars and one that gets us out of the messes that we're in.

People are praising Gates. He's not doing anything to cut the military - he only wants to reshape it to fight the kinds of wars he is interested in waging.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 07/26/2009
- TLV I'm a Fan of TLV 121 fans permalink

I heard a Marine Corps adviser on NPR yesterday. He said that under Rumsfeld, the only thing of real value that our troops were charged to protect were the pipelines. Coming from a Marine, I'd trust that statement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 07/26/2009

WE were never given a logical reason for being in Iraq or Afghanistan. So maybe Gates et al should rethink their position.

The 2.3 trillion dollars "lost" from the DOD would go a long way to give US Universal Health Care. But of course, since all wars are considered OUR patriotic duty to support. ...wonderi­ng where all that money went just logically is unpatriotic.

Reframe..r­eframe....­Make the Military Industrial Complex accountable the American tax payer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 AM on 07/26/2009

Yeah but there's so much more money to be made in killing people than in saving them. Nice to know that our lives mean absolutely nothing to these people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 07/26/2009
- talkingdog I'm a Fan of talkingdog 24 fans permalink
photo

It's simple,...­corporate interests with a good bit of personal gain by very well positioned, well connected idividuals.

Oli industry
Defense industry
General services contractor industry
Mineral industry
Shipping industry
Banking industry
Insurance industry
Agricultural industry
Airline industry
Telecom industry
Satellite industry

So many industries were/are on the Government dime on war making activity.
So the poor soldier told to march into the fight is only the expendable casualty of the bigger game.

The Vietnam war accomplished nothing except to enrich the same type of peoples fathers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 07/26/2009
photo

Win a war? What are you crazy? The only way Lockheed and GE and the whole dammed MIC win a war is if it keeps going forever. It is very important to divert money away from the taxpayers best interests. You know for a few billion we could build a high speed rail line from NY to Chicago. For a few billion we could do a lot of things that are actually useful on the butter side of the Guns and Butter economic equation. But no. "Close to $3.2 billion has been spent on the presidential helicopter and another $2.5 billion on the reserve engine, they say." 3.2 on one helicopter? 2.6 on research for a jet engine? Who can see the helicopter? Does anyone see a jet engine? Where's Waldo?
That dear friends is why we have no health care in the US for our taxpayer citizens. We spend (on credit from Communist China) more than the rest of the whole world on the defense budget and our abilty to defend ourselves is very poor. The existing stop-lossed troops are tired and their equipment is worn out. Families and friends are no longer encouraging enlistments and the military has to keep lowering their standards to fill quotas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 AM on 07/26/2009
- indc I'm a Fan of indc 19 fans permalink

Completely idiotic.. this is why Gates is there, same ole, same ole mindset in a more amiable package... he is still talking about winning in Iraq, in the war that is now Af-Pak... but there is no winning in conventional terms, that sort of winning has already been long accomplished, but in these situations, like VN, this is not even remotely close to what this type of winning meant in WWI or WWII.. so he is using a word that in undefined to describe a situation in which its traditional meaning does not apply.

We are at war for approximately 8 years right now, and continuing. It is hard to see the end in either Iraq or Af-Pak. In Iraq, there will be some word manipulations or other treacherous lies to extend and reclassify US involvement while doing pretty much the same thing... if McCrystal has his way in Af-Pak, and why would he not since he was just appointed, this war will grow worse in terms of lives lost, dollars spend, and futility experience­d... all these guys think the world was only waiting for them to make things work out "right"..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 AM on 07/26/2009
- Driver125 I'm a Fan of Driver125 5 fans permalink

"It would be nice to win our current wars," Michael Vickers, the Pentagon's top special operations official, said Thursday.

Just like it would be nice for the Cubs to win a world series, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen. I would be just as satisfied to give peace a chance. For awhile, anyway. Just to see how it works out. See what it feels like.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 AM on 07/26/2009
- Graywolf48 I'm a Fan of Graywolf48 78 fans permalink
photo

The problem is as Americans we don't know history very well. Therefor, we are condemned to repeat it again and again. We have learned none of the lessons taught the Russians, British, Turks and other powerful empires of the past about both Afghanistan and Iraq. These two "wars" are becoming very costly and will continue to siphon our blood and our treasure for years to come.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 AM on 07/26/2009
- JXJASON I'm a Fan of JXJASON 10 fans permalink

I take issue with the statement "our wars".

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not my wars. I did not vote to go to war against these two nations.

I expected President Obama to get rid of all the war mongers in the Department of Defense and the Pentagon. I also expected President Obama to GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

I have asked the President, my Congressman and my two US Senators to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

I will continue to make my request every week. You should too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 AM on 07/26/2009
- SamKnause I'm a Fan of SamKnause 74 fans permalink

I with you 100%. Bring them all home.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 AM on 07/26/2009
- PaleMail I'm a Fan of PaleMail 12 fans permalink

I've yet to here anyone from the Pentagon define the word "win" with respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 AM on 07/26/2009
- Peresphone I'm a Fan of Peresphone 9 fans permalink

"Win" usually means when strategic goals and political goals are met to the Pentagon and DOD's satisfaction, along with the administration and numerous people from the prior administration and new administration with the same results.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 AM on 07/26/2009
- SamKnause I'm a Fan of SamKnause 74 fans permalink

That is because these are wars that we will not be winning, in the sense that anyone will surrender. They will hate us forever for what we are doing to their people and country. We never should have went to Iraq and we should admit that and leave immediately. On the Afghanistan war I am not educated enough on the subject to express an opinion. It seems to me that we are always trying to force our ideas and religion on other countries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 AM on 07/26/2009

it astonishes me that they continue to talk as though there is such a thing as winning a war today. one assumes they imagine the principals on a Battleship or on the "field of honor" seated at a small table sighing truces and exchanging social niceties. let's face it...you kill people's family, they don't forget...f­or a long, long time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 AM on 07/26/2009
- Norge I'm a Fan of Norge 22 fans permalink

Well Mr. Vickers, you and your associates are not going to be winning any wars in the forseeable future.
If you and your associates were honest, civilized human beings, you and your associates would remove your selves from the murder zones, pack up your murder insterments and return to your own country.
You and your associates already have an enormous amount of grief and suffering to pay for.

Do not make it worse for yourselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 AM on 07/26/2009
- steel71 I'm a Fan of steel71 13 fans permalink

I thought Obama was gonna bring the troops home? Oh, he lied just like he lied about ending NAFTA, NSA spying on the American people, patriot act and so on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 07/26/2009
- Bubba Gump I'm a Fan of Bubba Gump 223 fans permalink
photo

Were you paying attention during the campaign? Obama told you he wanted to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, just as he is doing.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/hayden3 (July 21, 2008)
Once large numbers of American troops leave Iraq for good, some of them will come home. As for the other points, I think health care is on stage right now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 AM on 07/26/2009
photo

you expect him to do all these things in six months, and yet you can't even remember what he said ten months ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 AM on 07/26/2009
- Peresphone I'm a Fan of Peresphone 9 fans permalink

Well, Bush had 8 years...an­d for Iraq 6 years...qu­ite a long war...but then again, the Vietnam War took forever as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 AM on 07/26/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect