Every once in awhile, those of us who follow defense issues here in Washington will catch a glimpse of pre-9/11 wonkdom. Optimistic progressive types, though bummed by the election results, were beginning to find some hopeful ways to co-exist with the Bush Administration. One of those Hobbits-in-the-Shire flashes came to me last week when I saw that the House Democrats--with an official letter--reinforced a statement that Secretary Rumsfeld made while visiting the missile defense interceptor site in Alaska. He asked for an "end to end" test of missile defense. That means a comprehensive and realistic test--something that has not happened 100 billion dollars into this system. (you wouldn't know how much skepticism is deserved by reading, um, just about any major newspaper about the latest "successful test") In contrast, you would think that our leaders would be shocked by decades of mediocrity accumulated by the single most expensive weapons program in our budget.
Back in 2000, I felt conflicted by our new Sec Def. I did not view him as a neo-con, but, rather, as a corporate conservative who would knock some heads together in the defense establishment and finally purge some of our most egregious Cold War leftovers. As a bona fide Republican, he could pry some of those gold-plated barnacles off of the defense budget and persuade the defense industry and Congress to get on with post Cold War priorities. Sadly, 9/11 derailed those possibilities.
Which is why the House Democrats throwing down the glove about realistic testing is important. As we move past the half trillion mark in defense spending, perhaps their request will begin the vital discussion about tradeoffs within the defense budget. Sure, there are some parts of missile defense that are worthy--just not this blockbuster fantasy. Maybe now we can move past that old rhetorical trap of "guns versus butter" and get on with the "guns versus guns" debate. In budget item terms, this is the fight over resources dedicated to technology versus the individuals serving the military. Maybe, with counter insurgency's comeback and the recognition that all the techno gadgets in the world can't find a political solution for Iraq--the human resources issues will get a boost.
This prospect does not make the defense industry happy, however.
The flying sprocket lobby has a lot invested in the status quo. Last year saw $32 billion in mergers and acquisitions in the global aerospace, defense and information technology sectors. And they are moving into new markets. Monday's Washington Post included an article about the firms competing for border security contracts. The American firms were offering up mostly high-tech super expensive gadgets (UAVs, blimps and drones) Meanwhile, the Swedish firm Ericsson put its pitch in for human-centric relatively low tech communications system, a sort of personal digital assistants. Let's see who wins this contract. Will it be the country that has become expert at post Cold War peace keeping or the one learning a devastating lesson about the failure of democracy by force?
Wouldn't it be great if the silver lining of our Iraq experience is to reinvest in the human resources side of defense? Certainly, after all they've sacrificed, the men and women in our armed services deserve this type of support from civilian elected leaders. But there's more at stake here. Unless we put a stop to the belief in salvation through ever more complex technology, we're not going to truly take on real security policy reforms--regulating military privatization, for example, or stopping genocides like the one happening right now in the Sudan. Giving up on the techno-fix means so much more than re-directing funding and resources to more urgent and timely needs. It will be an idealistic, utterly American shift to a more hopeful and better way of getting on in the world. And it will save a lot of lives.