Never hostile to arguments in favor of cutting defense budgets, the New York Times has an editorial this morning lauding the efforts of Secretary Gates to "spend more rationally and efficiently", something upon which we can all agree. Citing some of his more courageous decisions (canceling the EFV, requiring retirees to pay for more of their own healthcare), the Times then makes a few suggestions of its own, each of which strikes me as strategically inept and disconnected from the reality of the world we face--or put another way, par for the course for the New York Times on defense issues.
Cutting back on the F-35 MIGHT make sense, if what they were suggesting was elimination of the STOVL version--but they're not saying that. Complaining about doubling costs per plane seems odd when an across the board cut would undoubtedly raise unit costs. I imagine what they are REALLY opposed to is the total price, and defense officials are working hard to get them under control. But with the F-22 already chopped, we've cast our lot with the F-35 and we need to press forward.
As for cutting back on the VIRGINIA Class SSN ("cold war relics"), the Times is strategically vapid. I have participated in probably a half dozen wargames in the past year and a half, and NO weapon system in our inventory is as important to maritime dominance, irrespective of the scenario, as is the SSN. It is our competitive advantage over EVERY Navy in the world, even more so than the CVN, and it will stay that way until the latter's airwing buys back range from sortie generation.
But to its credit, the Times raises the "formula" by which the Services are supported (something I've written here about quite often lately) and suggests a re-balancing. So far so good. But by the Times prescription, the Navy and Air Force would be cut in order to privilege the Army and Marine Corps. Most oddly of all, The Times banks this whole proposition on the notion that Seapower and Air Power can be "readily" mobilized. Realizing of course the whole inconvenience to the NYT of resorting to arguments born of our founding narrative, maintaining a Navy was there from the start (See "Constitution", US, Article 1 Section 8) as the Founders realized that it was the militia which could be readily mobilized. Timelines for organizing, training and equipping a Navy (a capital intensive undertaking) dwarf those of raising land armies.
The perfidy of this editorial is manifest. A newspaper that has RAILED for nearly ten years against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan--their tragedy in terms of blood and treasure--would now seek to enshrine the capability to KEEP FIGHTING THEM in Land Power subsidized by the elements of military power with most relevance to our national interests and continuing global leadership (which do intersect, may I add)--Seapower and to a lesser extent, Air Power. The Times has bought into the "Rise of the COINistas", who see major power war as a ridiculous notion (perhaps even a "Cold War relic?), while signing up for the responsibility of pursuing dubious objectives in land wars of choice against opponents who wish always to play out the clock.
But kudos to the Times on one level--they've put forward on a national scale a view of military power that others share, one that should be pursued as part of a broad debate on national strategy and the military capabilities that will support it.
It's time for the Congress to take up this debate. I would urge my Republican friends to consider the possibility of spending less on defense even as we make our nation safer and stronger. Less of the same military leaves us weaker across the board. Spending more on Land Power (and less on Sea and Air Power) privileges capability that is useful ONLY in time of war. Shifting resources from Land Power to Seapower recognizes the maritime nature of our enduring interests, provides greater return on investment (as naval forces provide essential peacetime benefits as well as wartime power), and leaves the country better prepared for the challenges posed by our desire to be a global power in an era of declining access.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment