Posted on 02/22/2008 5:50:57 PM PST by Mr Rogers
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have worn down the nation's ground forces, stretching those serving in the Army and Marines and wearing out their gear at an unprecedented rate. So, it's no surprise that the nation's ground-pounders would be seeking the most from the ever-cooperative members of the House Armed Services Committee. For years, that Pentagon-pleasing panel has asked the services to send it a wish list - lawmakers prefer to call it an "unfunded requirements list" - of budget items they desire but which have not been approved by their penny-pinching civilian overseers, i.e. the Defense Secretary and the President.
Earlier this month, the Army stepped up to the plate and asked for $4 billion more than the $141 billion it is slated to receive in 2009. The Marines asked for $3 billion more than their proposed ration of $25 billion. The Navy asked for $5 billion to be added to its bottom line of $124 billion. But all those sums added together don't equal the - hold your breath, dear taxpayer - $19 billion that the Air Force wants over and above its $144 billion request.
A quick flip through the 11-page list turns up a $13 million "requirement" for dorm furniture - an item that may justify the other services dubbing it the "Chair Force" because so many of its people are behind desks. In response to questions from TIME on the list's contents and cost, the Air Force issued a statement Thursday saying the list contains only its "most critical needs." Lieutenant General Dave Deptula, the Air Force's top intel officer, says his service's needs "are severe and getting worse," and that the list reflects the gap "between where we are and where we need to be."
Highlighting the huge request is a proposal by the Air Force to trump its civilian leaders and buy twice as many F-22 jets as now planned, while hyping the threats to justify the buy. China and India are, in the Air Force's eyes, the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet Union, requiring billions in new aircraft that even a hawkish Republican President doesn't think are needed. More critically, every dollar spent on supersonic aircraft is a dollar that isn't spent on the kind of troops and materiel needed to wage the two irregular wars the nation is now fighting, and which many experts predict will be the kinds of wars fought for the next generation or two.
The military is hardly starving. The Pentagon's proposed 2009 Defense Budget is twice the size of the budget President Bush inherited from Bill Clinton. Even without the nearly $200 billion for the wars, the $515 billion tab is on par with the defense budgets of World War II. "Today, free-flowing funding has fundamentally undermined all budget discipline in the Pentagon," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending from a senior post in the Clinton White House.
Take the fight over the F-22. The Pentagon has declared it wants to cap procurement at 183 planes, for $65 billion. But the Air Force wants 380 of them. "We think that [183] is the wrong number," General Bruce Carlson, the Air Force's top weapons buyer, told reporters at a Feb. 13 industry gathering. "We're committed to funding 380," he added. "We're building a program right now to do that." Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne after reading Carlson's comments in Aerospace Daily, a trade paper, and told him to remind Carlson who's the boss. (Wynne did, and issued a statement saying the Air Force "wholeheartedly supports" the Administration's proposal.)
Days earlier, Carlson said that today's U.S. Air Force "simply cannot fight and win against the fleet of airplanes that have been developed and are flying in India, China, and so forth," a claim questioned by many experts. But his view has been reinforced by the companies employing 25,000 workers in 44 states building the F-22 - the prime contractor is aerospace giant Lockheed Martin - and their allies in Congress. That is what is so insidious about these lists: once Congress gets a hold of them, they're used as pile drivers to pound extra billions into the Pentagon budget, generally by lawmakers seeking to fund jobs in their districts.
In addition to more F-22 fighters, the Air Force's wish list also seeks more F-35 fighters (needed for "the Required Force"), more C-130 and C-17 cargo planes ("Part of Required Force"), and more unmanned Global Hawk drones (these would merely "Support Required Force"). Unmanned aircraft are supposed to be cheaper, but the price tag on these runs more than $120 million apiece. More than $1 billion is being sought for 11 passenger planes, seven of them Gulfstream Vs favored by Apple's Steve Jobs and Sir Elton John (no mention of any Required Force justification here).
Then there's the line item seeking 100,600 handguns (there are 330,000 people in the Air Force) featuring "improved ergonomic design and higher caliber effectiveness" at $1,157 a pop. The service also wants 210,000 M-4 carbines at $1,747 a clip. For years, the Air Force has complained about the Army having its own air force. Now, at long last, the Army may be able to complain about the Air Force having its own army. View this article on Time.com
"China and India are, in the Air Force's eyes, the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet Union, requiring billions in new aircraft that even a hawkish Republican President doesn't think are needed..." - that is supposed to be unbiased reporting?
For the record, I think we do need the F-22, and we ARE wearing out jets flying them at a heavy rate in Afghanistan, Iraq and over the USA.
I've argued for years that we needed to increase the Army and Marines, but we have also known for 20 years that we would hit a procurement crunch in the Air Force at this time. And for the record, the arguments used against the F-22/F-35 were all also used against the F-15/16...that we could just keep going using the F-4 (admittedly, the greatest aircraft ever conceived by man - if you assume the blueprints weren't handed to M-D on stone tablets).
Factually incorrect on all counts. Curious how the same Political Left that never was bothered by Billy Clinton sending much worse equipped, grossly underfund over deployed troops all the place in the 1990s on mission of utterly no value to the USA National Interest now weep crocodile tears about our "overstretched military forces"
Using the "logic" we should never deploy our military anywhere because it would "wear out the gear, and over stretch the troops".
Nice trite propaganda slogan from so called "Journalists", to bad it would be moronically suicidal as national policy.
Unfortunately, the United States Military, like the rest of government, is riddled with bureaucracy and waste. Among other things, I order parts for C-130’s and you would be shocked at how the simplest thing could cost thousands of dollars. There is so much that can be done to limit waste and allow more funds for more equipment.
“...There is so much that can be done to limit waste and allow more funds for more equipment...”
Yeah. By the time anything the government purchases meets all the inane regulations for pollution, etc., etc., it costs 10 - 15 times more than it should.
Take a simple ball point pen. The packaging, ink and all parts have to be manufactured to meet strict EPA rules and government ‘specs’. The 39 cent BIC you would buy turns into a $9.00 Skillcraft. Go figure.
(These figures are for illustration, but hopefully you get my drift.)
Uhhh, aren’t we off-shoring all our jobs to India and China? Isn’t India supposed to be an ally?
I can understand the hesitation to buy air superiority fighters given the immediate needs of our men on the ground.
Yes, we are off whoring all our jobs to China... Bush doesn’t want to approve the increase in F-22s because he doesn’t want to upset the Chinese, whom he refers to as “our friends” even as they prepare for war against us. Any war against China will begin over the Taiwan Strait, and would require air and sea assets rather than troops.
This “article” is a perfect example of why Time magazine is completely disrespected by anyone possessing a brain.
Time magazine breathlessly wrings its hands over a $31 billion dollar request to help fund our military. defense of this nation is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT JOB entrusted to our government, and our military is the way through which we keep America and her allies free nations.
I wonder how they stand on the $845 billion Global Poverty Act? That’s a bill sponsored by Barack Obama that would force the United States to give AN EXTRA $65 BILLION PER YEAR over what it already gives... and would put that money under the control of the United Nations.
I’ll bet I can guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.