I'm flattered that you think we could afford to buy the bloody thing.
I think you're absolutely right that it's deeply shoddy and is indeed a symptom of something approaching a military industrial complext running out of control.
On the other hand, it has to be noted that with major defence procurement, you've got to be thinking quite a long way ahead. Are F-22s useful now? No. But we don't know what the map is going to look like in 10 years time. That said, in this case I think it's still pretty much a crock.
On the issue of selling them, I think the real fear will be the Chinese or the Russians getting hold of one and having a good look at the innards. Other than that factor there's a counterintuitive argument that if you sell it to people they become reliant on you and if they ever turn against you, you just stop supplying them with the spare parts and they'll grind to a halt fairly abruptly. Not sure it's a good argument, but it's worth raising.
"How useful has the F-22 (or the plane it replaces, the outstanding F-15) been in fighting terrorism, capturing Osama Bin Ladin, or bringing stability to Iraq? (yes, that's a rhetorical question)"
Peter,
You're right -- very rhetorical. Lacking in substance, too.
Big War forces are designed to end state-on-state war. Small War forces are designed to win insurgencies. Different battles, different tools.
One might similar criticize Social Security, because it does not help us catch bin Laden or defend democracies from invasion. That would be equally as bizarre.
One might similar criticize Social Security, because it does not help us catch bin Laden or defend democracies from invasion. That would be equally as bizarre.
How so? Social Security is only marginally connected to defending our country from threats to our National Security, in that it takes up a part of the overall government budget for a fiscal year. Whereas, the F-22 cuts directly into the Defense budget allocated per fiscal year, and hence is intimately connected to what the Defense Department can and cannot do due to budget constraints.
That is what I believe Peter is arguing here, mainly that when the Defense Department (a unit of the government actually tasked with protecting our national security and defending our borders and interests abroad) is forced to expand a program that for all intent and purpose is useless as far, as current necessities on the ground are concerned, it presents a problem for our overall National Security by robbing us of money we could use to address current problems and realities on the ground; such as the need for a force capable of fighting a counter-insurgency war effectively. We already have a Leviathan force that is "designed to end state-on-state war." What we desperately need right now, is that other force to better deal with and address insurgencies, guerrillas and other asymmetrical threats to our security. In essence, the argument here can be that in continuing the F-22 program, the government (as far as the nation’s Defense budget is concerned) is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
That's also been Barnett's criticism:
"The Pentagon has more than $1 trillion locked up in programs of record that won't find much good application in a Long War where only 20 percent of the victory will be "kinetic," according to the Army's and Marines' new counter-insurgency doctrine, but no matter. With an administration that feels no compulsion to limit spending on anything (those cut-taxes-and-spend-like-crazy Republicans), no hard choices are forced. Rummy will have his Long War and eat his cake too, and the big defense contractors will be lulled into thinking that their future can remain a pale imitation of their past."
With the F-22, this is just another hard choice (between Sysadmin force and Leviathan) that the current leadership in Congress has failed to make.
"How so? Social Security is only marginally connected to defending our country from threats to our National Security, in that it takes up a part of the overall government budget for a fiscal year. Whereas, the F-22 cuts directly into the Defense budget allocated per fiscal year, and hence is intimately connected to what the Defense Department can and cannot do due to budget constraints."
Both criticize a program for failing to address an unrelated goal. Social Security, part of the domestic SysAdminLikewise, defending Taiwan, part of the international Leviathan, does not directly relate to catching bin Laden, part of the international SysAdmin.
It's good rhetoric. But that's all.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
