New York Times Plays the Same Old Song

The New York Times steps into the world of defense spending to give recommendations regarding how the DoD should save money. This editorial changes a few words only to sound very similar to an editorial posted late last year.

I do however believe it should be highlighted that this is absolutely false, either because the folks at the New York Times are ignorant or because they are simply biased.

How much the expansion and pay increases will cost will not be known until the full budget is released in April. What is already clear is that to stay within the $534 billion ceiling, the Pentagon will have to finally face the real world and make cuts in expensive and outdated cold-war weapons systems. President Obama and his advisers have a few more weeks to figure out which weapons to cut. But we are ready now with suggestions.

We would start by killing off the Air Force’s F-22 fighter and the Navy’s DDG-1000 stealth destroyer. We would also scale down the Army’s Future Combat Systems and hold back the deployment of unproven missile defense systems. Those four steps could save well over $10 billion a year. Billions could be saved by halting construction of unnecessary attack submarines, and dropping the Marines’ troubled tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft.

Cutting weapons programs takes political courage — that is why so many have survived so long after their military rationales evaporated. President George W. Bush was not willing to face down industry lobbyists and their carefully cultivated Congressional allies. The F-22 program, backers claim, sustains more than 25,000 jobs in 44 states — jobs that will be fiercely defended in the current economic environment. But cutting unnecessary programs is essential to help pay for more critical defense needs and more cost-effective economic stimulus.

Cutting weapons programs does not take political courage; it a time tested tradition in politics as old as the military services. Isn't it prudent to wait and see how much the troop expansion costs are before recommending which programs need to stay and go?

If the Obama administration cuts the DDG-1000, they will simply be doing what the Navy already wants them to do, hardly an act of political courage. I don't actually disagree with any of the recommendations, although I'd like to see some analysis regarding what would be gained by cutting the F-22 compared to what would be lost. Unlike the other three programs, the F-22 program is a replacement for a critical capability of the United States that dates back a lot longer than the cold war. Air superiority is a complex military capability, and right now the F-22 is at the center of our nations capability in achieving contested air space. The argument the program represents some job force is industrial and perhaps economic, but with the aircraft having a life span leading out until 2035 and beyond, not to mention the enormous costs in developing state of the art intercept aircraft, there is a lot at stake in the F-22 program beyond a potential near term cost savings and a handful of aviation jobs.

The real challenge is the cost problems being created with the expansion of military forces, a decision that can only be described as fighting the last war. Cost growth for acquisition today is historically steady, not different than in any other period as it stays between 30% and 40% of normal budgeting. This is a historical pattern, despite all efforts to adjust with cuts or increases in the past. In other words, every single effort to reign in costs in some form or another has ended in failure, with cost growth simply occurring in new ways to meet the historical trend.

But what is new is the enormous cost growth coming from the manpower side of the DoD budget, a trend that is expected to increase as we add 92,000 additional military personnel this fiscal year. Manpower costs have increased 40% since 2000, a remarkable trend absent any analysis by observers like the New York Times. The New York Times can call out Congress regarding political courage all they want, but the New York Times doesn't even have the moral courage to be honest about what is actually stressing the DoD budget in Obama's first term.

Consider how rediculous it is for the New York Times editorial pages to discuss saving $10 billion a year with 4 simple procurement cuts when the additional of 92,000 new members to the defense services is expected to add about $100 billion to the cost of the DoD budget over the next six years.

There are serious choices to be made, and simply cutting procurement isn't going to do anything but put a dirty rag on a bleeding wound. Where is the clear strategic rationale for increasing the size of the ground forces? We are going to end up with an even larger military under Obama than we had under Bush, except this one will be underfunded with fewer ships and planes than anytime since before WWII. Why? The biggest irony of it all is that people run around claiming cutting the F-22 is done because the nation shouldn't be trying to fight the Soviets during the cold war, when in fact expanding the size of the ground forces is making an even bigger mistake by trying to fight the last war in Iraq.

Think about the trade of capabilities being discussed here... If the folks like the New York Times who simply think cutting procurement is the answer get their way, we potentially trade air superiority for the capability to occupy another weak country. The F-22 is so we don't have to fight Russia or China, a larger land force is so that we can occupy another country... like Mexico.