Congress, the F-22 and the Monkey on Our Back

Anybody who has lived with an addict knows about denial. So it goes with Congress and defense spending. Case in point this week is the F-22, a gold-plated Cold War barnacle that has been stuck to American taxpayers for decades. Addicts are so comforted by their hazy worldview that they often respond with contemptuous bluster to alternative ideas (i.e., critics are "weak" on national security). Addictions don't discriminate by party (Democrats are the ones who voted to take money out of toxic environment cleanup to fund more F-22 parts). Addicts especially hate advice from authority figures who might know something about the problem (the military itself does not want these extra planes because they think 187 of them is enough and they, like President Obama, see the true threats revealed by 9/11). In fact, addicts don't like to talk about the problem at all (last night the House Rules Committee refused to make in order Barney Frank's simple amendment to restore the defense authorization bill to its original status). The Armed Services Committee's original bill did not include funding for more F-22s.

In today's defense budget discussions, Mr. Frank is absolutely correct -- improving national security is going to require a dramatic shift in spending priorities. Indeed, we won't see what is coming at us as long as we're looking backward for comfort and inspiration. Like addicts.

Congress has every right to push back against the Executive Branch. That's not the issue here. What is upsetting is the refusal of the House to acknowledge that the threats this nation faces are more important than corporate bottom lines, more compelling than defense lobbyist talking points and more urgent than using the defense budget as a jobs program. (Where is our modern industrial policy? So that we aren't endangering our safety by turning defense industry dependent unions against a bold new vision for national security?) Besides, Secretary Gates put the F-35 in the budget to replace those jobs. During World War II, the defense industry was a true strategic partner with the services -- it helped the Army create a battle-decisive Air Force. Today's defense industry is a shadow of its former self: afraid, lacking substance and cravenly greedy. Now its about the game, not the cause. And the rest of us just lost.

Congress' action is even more shocking because the decision to keep these planes in the budget isn't part of a typical "guns vs. butter" debate, which pits domestic priorities like education against defense spending. Military priorities are at stake. In other words, this is a "guns vs. guns" battle, and the military is losing. Both the Air Force Secretary and the Air Force Chief of Staff have noted that because of budgetary pressures, "buying more F-22s means doing less of something else." In economics, this is called an opportunity cost. It is everything that we won't be doing because of a choice made. Like preparing ourselves for 21st century threats, including those that can't be fixed by the military.

I know something about widespread addiction. I grew up in San Juan County in northern New Mexico, a place where drunk driving is epic. The region has often led the nation in motor vehicle deaths. In the late 1980s the Albuquerque Journal did a series on Gallup, a town so afflicted by alcohol that Mother Teresa herself had declared it a forsaken place. The coverage revealed the layers of complicity that led to hundreds of fatalities -- especially concentrated among the local Navajo population. Gallup businesses had five times the number of liquor licenses than allotted under state law. I well remember the dozens of drive-up windows where one could buy booze. Always next to a pawn shop. In Gallup, bars were open seven days a week, from 7:00 A.M. until 2:00 A.M. Wine was often fortified with brandy to make it 19 percent alcohol. Many of the city's most prominent citizens not only owned bars, restaurants, and liquor distribution outlets but also had been elected to public office and appointed to various municipal and civic organizations. The liquor industry was one of Gallup's economic mainstays; by the late '80s it reported more taxable earnings than the finance, insurance, and real estate industries combined.

Finally, Mayor Ed Munoz pointed out the collective addiction: "People had become so accustomed to alcohol abuse in Gallup that they stopped seeing it," he said.

The same could be said about Congress and defense spending today. The F-22 is emblematic of a worldview that doesn't serve our national interest, but the people who control the money can't hear the argument. Most national security lessons since 1991 -- when the Soviet Union disappeared -- point out that military tools are inadequate safety precautions today. Security requires a broader lens. We should have done a full turnaround in 1993 when we lost 18 Army Rangers in Somalia. A humanitarian mission turned into a deadly gang vendetta. It was a lesson ignored by Congress. The decade continued: Haiti needed police and judges, Bosnians needed jobs and houses. From the drug wars to the war in Iraq, today's challenges don't respond well to use of force. Planes like the F-22 are mostly beside the point. Afghanistan is emblematic of our effort to change course both strategically and tactically. Protecting civilians means we will measure success based on indicators of legitimacy not enemies killed or arms caches uncovered. I don't think it is unwarranted to worry that a Congress that can't respect the intentions of the president's budget -- one that is trying to move us toward a safer future -- will be able to exercise the kind of oversight on Iraq withdrawal and Afghan population security -- that we need to move forward.

Gallup, NM began to get better over time. Starting the road to recovery required mass citizen participation, new laws and brave leadership. It hasn't reached its happy ending yet, but the depths of addiction are behind it.

If the Senate doesn't take the F-22 funding out of this bill then President Obama should veto it. If it remains, it will lead to billions of dollars more: Our future will be funding the past. We will hit rock bottom: Uniformed and civilians alike will die because they weren't priorities. If the F-22 goes forward, we will miss our chance to pull ourselves above the haze, assess today's real security threats and hopefully get the bejesus scared into us to do something about it.

Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly

Comments

[IndyMarine]

I remember being so bitter about the fact that I was driving around Al Anbar on a rescue team for IED attacks with no armor under my ass (literally) and on patrol we would watch state of the art 30 million dollar aircraft shooting practice rounds out into the desert sand. They spend and prep and cycle in and out of the military and boeing preparing for some unknown foe yet to present itself. I have yet to see a dogfight between a Marine Air Wing and the 1st Flying Taliban/An­ti-Coaliti­on Fighter wing. How selfish of these hogs, especially now. F-22? FOR WHAT?!

[FaceReality2]

President Eisenhower warned us, and nobody paid attention.

For all their bluster about supporting the troops, the people who waste our tax money on these billion dollar weapon systems don't give a damn about the troops or the taxpayers. They are out to get rich at our expense.

[IndyMarine]

Word.

[FaceReality2]

Remember what happened to the Roman empire.

And they didn't have over 700 military bases in 130 foreign countries.

[Liberal2]

We played this game after WW!, and had a smaller army than Poland. We played this game after WW2, and ended up in a war in Korea. Whether we need the F-22 is more a question of when our enemies will strike (read what Chinese generals say; figure out where North Korea got its nuclear and rocket technology) and how technological that attack will be.

No, the world hasn't stopped using military power as a tool.

The F-22 may be important, or it may not. What certainly will be important are unmanned military aircraft and autonomous ground weapons.

China's military budget is much larger than the US military budget once you correct for prices of manpower and hardware.

[FaceReality2]

And it will be in China's interest to attack us because?

[martinchill]

Dr. Strangelove was on TMC last night... folks - if you haven't seen that incredible film yet, by all means do yourself the favor... stanley kubrick directing Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens, James Earl Jones and others...

[FaceReality2]

The generals caricatured in Dr. Strangelove unfortunately come close to the kind of people who actually run the Military-I­ndustrial-­Congressio­nal Complex.

[Berettasskeeter]

How many Generals do you actually know?!
Semper fi

[TerrapinCB]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saphr2647h_20090624.pdf

F-22 Advance Procurement:
The Administration strongly objects to the provisions in the bill authorizing $369 million in advanced procurement funds for F-22s in FY 2011. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.

[LeLoup]

This just in via the Philadelphia Inquirer in page A-11:

"Veto is threatened if F-22s are funded."

Someone has located its spine around the WH...about time!

[Hemihead]

By all means, kill all defense spending. The savings could be utilized to serve Hot Dogs and Hamburgers to our enemies.

[FaceReality2]

Isn't that what Jesus would do?

[swancj]

Of course, if there was an actual argument for saving the F-22 despite the military opposition, you might point that out. But hey, I guess it's okay to hate the troops when they don't fall in step with the right agenda.
Some people think that the government can't do anything right, but they are hardly ever brave enough to include the military in that characterization. Maybe this is a refreshing change?

[Berettasskeeter]

What military opposition is that? It is the politicians in the Defense Dept. who have gone along with the Obama Admin. in declaring that the F-22 is unneeded, not the people who have to fight the wars.
Semper fi

[Nommo]

Kill 'em with kindness and cholesterol.

[FaceReality2]

Yes, we are surrounded by enemies with air forces, navies and huge armies just waiting to attack and invade us if we reduce military spending.

". . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering

[jhamm1]

Only a certifiable w.ar.mon.g.er would attempt to correlate capping defense spending at 600 billion dollars and investing nothing in defense whatsoever.

[hrholmes]

F-22's, nuke submarines, nuke bombs, more ocean destroying navy ships for nothing, the Osprey vertical takeoff plane and missile defense systems that can't actually hit an incoming missile. The list of waste and absolutely nothing in return continue under the hypocrisy of national security. None have done us one bit of good or security yet and never will.

[jhamm1]

Like any insatiable toddler, our military forces require new toys every so often, not out of necessity, but to assuage their boredom after tiring of the ones they received three christmasses ago.

[emmacop]

We could always take the money out of the War on Poverty, which is currently running around a TRILLION dollars per year, or $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

[bighat]

End the war on poverty no. Give people money so they do not have to live in poverty yes. But if the teat dries up then the same people are back on the street because they never learned how to take of themselves

[Berettasskeeter]

As that War is an abject failure, where our military is the finest in the world, I would agree it is a better use for the money.
Semper fi

[audadvnc]

Mission Accomplished. Plus or minus six to eight years and a million dead civilians. Great work.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

We have fuel (mpg) standards for cars - why not for aircraft, or is this part of our defense addiction denial?

[bighat]

aircraft fine but the builders cheat. Anyone remeber when smoiking was allowed on planes. At that time the planes had serious air circulation because no one wants to smell smoke including smokers. but smoking was eliminated. the air filters were diluted to the point if one person has a cold then 60% of the plane will get sick.

Everyone knows they want the planes in the air. MPH is always a consideration

[Hemihead]

CAFE standards helped wreck the auto industry, by forcing them to make a certain percentage of 'pregnant roller skates' that nobody wanted to buy rather than SUVs and pickups that the automakers actually made money on.

Now you want to do the same to the aircraft industry?

[michaelsmolder]

What BS that is. GM's own studies several years ago told Management to start building smaller, and more fuel efficient cars!

Did Management listen? Hell NO !

GM crashed due to BAD MANAGEMENT !

[CanisLatrans]

Well, the USAF is funding research to make biofuel for airplanes from algae....

[Bush-Rolled]

Every time the question is raised about how to pay for universal health care, I wonder why no one thinks of cutting it from the "defense" budget. We spend more than all the other countries in the world combined for "defense" but balk at the task of keeping our people healthy. Makes no sense to me.

[Berettasskeeter]

Perhaps because defense is spelled out in the Constitution, and health care is not?!
Semper fi

[ChimpsWithNukes]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

notice the "promote the general walfare" part?

[doctorkosan]

You are correct - there is no justification for the unjustifiably gargantuan size of the Pentagon budget. The F-22 is a good example as were the $1000 hammer and the $10,000 toilet.
We spend more on "defense" (a misnomer) than all others on the planet combined. We are a war mongering nation who profits more than anyone from weapons sales and we can start to change that that by beginning to starve the beast.
I am not saying do away with the defense department but bring it into control. By virtue of funding , they must be the best lobbyists in DC.
It would be great if as a start, the Pentagon was forced to put a plan together to handle the mission of the defense department at half the budget. WWII was over 65 years ago, let's bring the troops home from Germany and Japan as a good beginning.
Otherwise we, like the USSR before us, will go bankrupt trying to be the "cops of the world".

[FaceReality2]

"they must be the best lobbyists in DC. "

Pres. Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech. The sheeple didn't listen. The MIC will bankrupt us all before giving up their gravy train.

"bring the troops home from Germany and Japan"

How about closing most of the over 700 bases we maintain in over 130 foreign countries?

[CanisLatrans]

No, actually, what makes the F-22 hard to kill is that it is not a "$10,000.0­0 toilet" but actually a pretty good plane. It's just a good plane for another era.

[psychologist]

First of all I am a strong supporter of the Military. I generally disagree with Ms.Kelly. However I am much in agreement with her on this article. I would like to point out a few thing I know first hand regarding the F-22: We see it flying over Anchorage every day and it is a beautiful flying machine. However mechanics who are friends of mine tell me that it is a maintance nightmare. Second the F-16f can shoot down anything in the world and is second to none except the F-22. A pilot friend of mine states that his F-22 can take on 4 F 16's in a dog fight and win. (No Brag just fact) however we are developing the F-35 and it is just silly to build two fighters and go into production with no threat to either! As I stated the F-16f can shoot down anything and the F-18 as well. So why build it politics both Democrats and Republicans are to Blame if we will be true about this. either get rid of the 22 or develop it and forget the 35 for years to come!

[Berettasskeeter]

How about this. The F-35 is intended for a different mission than the F-22.
Semper fi

[swancj]

What difference is that?

[michaelsmolder]

Great comments, thanks .

[FaceReality2]

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering

[GordonA]

I suspect that in 5-10 years the F-22 will be obsolete, having been eclipsed by much more cost and combat effective unmanned aircraft.

[bighat]

We are desensitived to war now as it does not affect us all in our everyday lives as it did in WWII.

The unmanned planes are coming but I am not sure I like the idea of war being fought on a video screen

[lawyerfan]

Maybe one of these days live people will be moved out of harm's way on both sides. The drones can "kill" the enemy's robots and vice versa. Attrition by economic forces will decide who wins, but human casualties will be minimal. Peace through war. Huzzah!

[dieselis]

i don't know all the story on this aircraft. it was rumored to be compromised. however, my friends russia is all but back thanks to perastroka. challenging jets over the north pole. war exercises in south america the planes may be necessary to update the previous models. so this might not be the place to pick a fight i'm sure there are many other places to start. russia's the toys R us of military arms,ak47 factory in venezuela, selling planes to anyone with cash, do i need to go on. perhaps your right but caution is necessary. dc is not going to be turned on a dime. if its done right the savings will be longlasting have you ever known greed to lay down without a fight. it will be a vicious knock down drag out fight. like a old timer 20plus rounds.

[FaceReality2]

"russia's the toys R us of military arms . . . selling planes to anyone with cash"

No, we are.

[Berettasskeeter]

You might look at the actual stats. Russia, China, and N. Korea are the arms merchants of the world!
Semper fi