Hawks, Doves and Stoolpigeons Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Today I attended two events--both about security--which left me with two very different impressions about how to effectively put forward a progressive American vision of a secure future.  In the morning was a panel of Democratic leaders  discussing how to be "strong on defense"  To the credit of the organizers, the panel was representative of a range of  views on security, from progressive to centrist/DLC.  The afternoon gathering was on Capitol Hill, a briefing about potential crises in our oil-depleted future with a Swedish physicist named Dr. Aleklett from the University of Uppsala.

I left the morning event a little bit depressed--the last thing I heard was how the Democrats can only be seen as strong on defense if they protect themselves from the "activists".   Interestingly, the afternoon gathering included everyone from Greenpeace types to military.  Although the data was startling (Ex: The ratio of oil use to world population USA: 25% to 5%  China: 8% to 21% see more here.)   It was also exhilarating to hear the problem-solving views put forward by both the speaker and the audience.  It was matter of fact i.e. "we're going to run out of oil, what shall we do about this? We need everyone's creativity to get out of this bind."   The contrast between these two gatherings put into stark relief the  paucity of  "strong versus weak" argumentation when it comes to security.  Indeed,  seeing security as Hawks versus  Doves has turned much of our elected leadership into a flock of stool pigeons--the rhetoric is a decoy, a distraction for not facing the risks of real change.  And now Americans are getting killed because of it.  We have plenty of good ideas, but our leaders have not implemented our imagination.  The "activists" just may have been right all along.  Let's hope the new Contract for National Security mentioned by Heather and Suzanne  helps the Democrats bust through this deadweight rhetoric.

It can't come too soon. Let's look at the ongoing action on the Defense Appropriations bill. Despite one significant victory  (the committee cut $4.5 million that the Administration had requested  for the nuclear bunker buster weapon).  Full funding for missile defense was approved.   The measure also includes $50  billion as a fiscal year 2006 down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are now costing about $5.6 billion a month.  See a full analysis here.   

One document that gives us language to move past the old frameworks is The Korb Report: A Realistic Defense for America.  This is a great piece of work by Larry Korb and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities --founded by that  "activist" CEO Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's)  Korb lays out a plan to trim $60 billion from President Bush's 2006 Pentagon budget.  But in so doing, he gives us language to stay out of the hawks versus doves trap.  He makes trade-offs simple. For example, instead of just dismissing missile defense, distinguish the star wars fantasy up in Alaska (national missile defense) from the Patriot program (theater missile defense) which protects the troops in the field.  Another example, instead of griping about all those fancy fighter jets, offer instead an upgrade of the F-16 and continuation of the Joint Strike Fighter but get rid of the F-22.  In other words, give the "activists" something to say "yes" to. 

Here are some of the promised links from the Army conference reader I was given last month:

These are the clickable ones. Some gave me problems, so I will check them out and determine if they are linkable before I post them.

The Center for Army Lessons Learned Thesaurus
here.

UN Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs here.

And its civil military coordination section :here.

How to take a corresondence course to become a peacekeeper (through William and Mary! go liberal arts!) here.

The Joint Staff Information Network here.

Comments

[John Penta]

Um, the link to the Joint Staff Information Network doesn't work. Just thought you'd like to know.

[John Penta]

Actually reading...Lorelei, this looks mostly good.

I like what I'm seeing in the Korb report. I do, think, however, that we need to account for inertia.

With F-22, we're too far into it not to finish it off. (The first squadron is supposed to be IOC in FY06 I thought?)

F-35 we need...Upgrading 16s may not do much. You can upgrade em all you like, the problem is eventually going to the age of the airframes. I don't recall the F-16 line (as would be used by the USAF) producing much, if it still builds planes anymore?

NMD in Alaska is, I think, a Fait Accompli. It's mostly on the way, and I think it's slid past the point of no return.

[libertarian soldier]

The F-16 is still very alive and well, as it continues to produce them for export as well as some for missions such as Wild Weasel.
I agree on the F-35 (because of foreign participation/potential for export/more flexible capabilities than the F-22 (not withstanding the USAF late decision to designate it the F/B-22. Also, BMD. I do think (if you can Congress to cut anything) is cut the numbers down to a wing plus spares which would cut out almost 100 (at roughly $220M a pop).

[Lane Brody]

The real problem is beginning a discussion on cutting the defense budget from the point of view that too much is being spent. Too much may be being spent but the first priority should be to identify what force structure we need and then fund it.

Since the end of the Cold War fifteen years ago this nation has gotten extremely spoiled by very seriously underfunding procurement. We simply can't afford to keep putting off equipment purchases- the bill we eventually will have to pay keeps getting bigger.

In order to streamline DOD we should get rid of one of the services. We should cut the Air Force force structure in half and divide up the half that's left between the Army, Navy, and Marines. It's quite silly that 4 services have 4 air forces and that the actual Air Force is institutionally disinterested in supporting the Army- hence the invention of the attack helicoptor in response to lack of CAS and the Army today needing to buy transport planes because the Air Force can't be bothered to fly enough C-130 transport missions.

Get rid of the Air Force. That would save ballpark $100 billion a year.

Lane Brody

[JohnFH]

I'm glad to see Lorelei play up the Korb Report, even if it contains a huge dollop of posturing on what are actually done deals (see previous comments).

There is so much room for change, positive change, but little or no incentive to seek it, if you have no overarching goals other than bringing home the pork to your home district.

I too believe in the positive multiplying effect of international institutions, states, NGOs, business leaders, educational, religious, and service organizations working together on common goals. The best and most last lasting work will be bi- or multi-partisan in nature.

We live in a polarized age, but we should fight it nevertheless. Polarization leads to inertia, and to very counterproductive forms of right and left wing elitism.

[marc]

"It's quite silly that 4 services have 4 air forces and that the actual Air Force is institutionally disinterested in supporting the Army- hence the invention of the attack helicoptor in response to lack of CAS and the Army today needing to buy transport planes because the Air Force can't be bothered to fly enough C-130 transport missions."

What a plot of poop.

This just in: There have been a few changes in the military services since the end of the Vietnam War, y'all.

First off, all the services are in the midst of scaling back their air elements -- e.g., the Army has attack helicopters, but you won't find any A-10s with 'U.S. Army' emblazoned on the side. That's because fixed wing is done by USAF, which is what they do well - given the resources.

The Army and Air Force are getting along better than they ever have (witness the joint STRYKER brigades with Air Force combat controlers embedded in them) and the Army's chief of staff has stated out of his own mouth that CAS has evolved to the point where it is just as good if not better than lugging around artillery and shells.

Air Mobility Command is being worked to death at the moment (OIF, OEF, Katrina, Pakistan, et. al.) and it wasn't too long ago that some in the Pentagon were trying to kill the successful C-130 program. AMC is the public face of the Air Force across the world, and has been asked to accomplish quite a lot with diminishing resources.

Just the other day, a C-130 crew flew from Bahrain to Bagram to Pakistan back to Bagram and then to Manas (Kyrgyzstan) before coming home. Translation: a combat mission, combat support mission and a humanitarian lift mission all in the same flight.

Doesn't sound to me like they're cherry picking their assignments.

My two pence,

mvs

[libertarian soldier]

I would disagree. There have been very few changes in the services at all. They still do the same old job in the same old ways--except for how they train, which is driven by the prevailing doctrine. What has changed is the Congressionally mandated and OSD managed drive towards jointness.
There almost were Army marked A-10s. The USAF wanted to give them up (because they do hate doing CAS and much prefer the OCA/DCA/AI missions) to the Army until they got so much favorable publicity during the first Gulf War. And rather then replace it with a new aircraft, they have caused joint doctine to be modified to include rotary wing in the definition of CAS, giving it back to the Army. They don't like to do it, even from 15K feet.
I would be fascinated to know more about combat controllers embedded in Stryker Brigades, as their function is preparing airfields. Also, in this usage is embedded being used as assigned, attached, OPCON, or what? Of course, ALOs and ETACs have been attached down to battalion level in combat arms units for many years.
AMC is the public face of the USAF across the world? Maybe, along with the evangelical ,sexually harassing Air Force Academy, the causing unfortunate collateral damage fighter pilots, the multiple procurement scandal Air Force headquarters and, just maybe, the most recognizable combat aircraft in the world--the B-2.

[Lane Brody]

The Air Force does not want to buy more transport planes nor do they wish to buy a plane to replace the A-10. The Air Force is broadly transports, fighters, bombers, recon, and Space Command.

Every other service has transports- the Air Force just has more. The Air Force does not have enough C-130's nor enough C-17's and does not want anymore as buying them means less fighters. Give them all to the other services.

Most of the Air Force is made up of F-16's because in the 1970's it was felt we couldn't afford an Air Force of all high end fighters like the F-15. The Navy and Marine Corp also fly fighters and those do not need air bases on land with the often problematic political considerations (Afganistan was made possible by Navy carriers not the Air Force). Get rid of every single US Air Force fighter. Give the Navy 4 more carrier wings, beef up the Marine air wings, and give the Army the A-10's.

The bombers are great. We should have a few more combat coded (in service instead of in storage). It doesn't matter who flies them.

Recon is becoming more and more a matter of either UAV's which all the services fly already or stuffing electronics in transports which all the services also fly too. We don't need the Air Force here either.

The Air Force can keep the blue suits and just move to orbit with Space Command which is all they really want to do anyway. The Air Force will go away at some point soon in any case as the other services are willing to use enlisted personel to fly UAV's. The Air Force still requires a pilot officer to fly UAV's. Pilots, at least combat pilots, will not exist someday.

I'd suggest getting rid of the Army but nobody could stand the USMC getting that big. Finally, the official 5th Service by law, also has their own Air Force. Throw in the Coast Guard there are really 6 seperate Air Forces in the US Military all with their own budget authority (officially the USMC still has the USN buy it's aircraft). Six Air Forces is too silly for words and a blatant duplication of effort and extremly wastefull. Progressives should demand one is cut tommorow. Maybe another soon thereafter.

Hell the Air Force is planning to buy more Marine Corp versions of the F-35 (VSTOL). If it can't take off verticaly or take off from a carrier why is the nation going to buy a single one? From this perspective the Air Force is totally redundant and wastefull ( the Air Force version of the F-35 need never have been built).

The structure of the US Military is irrationally top heavy. It needs to be cut in order to afford more of the guys that actually matter. If we were starting from scratch there would be one service with a few branches. What we have is due to tradition. Maybe some of that is worth saving. We fought WWII just fine without the Air Force and we can't afford the duplication of effort anymore.

Lane Brody

[Doug]

Lorelei, I appreciate the effort to get a dialogue going about the need for new thinking. I'm not sure the discussion thread about reconfiguring or streamlining the military is the best way to talk about some new thinking. We certainly need a military but I'm not convinced that we have the military we need. Rumsfeld's policies merely demonstrate that we now have a military that scraps the bottom of the barrel when it comes to recruitment and a Pentagon that ignores the expertise of civilians and military personnel in the pursuit of vague, reactive agendas that don't serve us well in the long-term.

But of course the Rumsfelds and Cheneys are not the only problem. It seems both the political left and right are somewhat stuck on cold war thinking at a time when the world situation is changing rapidly in terms of economics, energy and a host of other issues that makes tiresome the right's habit of looking for new bogeymen and the left's habit of being unrealistic about the nuts and bolts of where the world goes from here. I don't think even the middle has the answers right now. To be honest, I'm aware of people across the political spectrum who have very useful skills that can be brought to bear on these issues but the current environment tends to marginalize the very people who have expertise.

I'm glad there's some discussion of the growing worldwide energy problems in Washington despite the paralysis of the White House and Congress on energy issues (even if this might have been one of the purposes of invading Iraq) and despite an embarrassing and ineffectual foreign policy that seems lifted straight out of the early 1980s with only the name of the enemy changed and no recognition that we're entering a very different era.

Reviving the energy crisis as an issue makes a lot of politicians nervous since we've been down that road before; just when this nation was getting serious about developing new sources of energy back in the late 1970s, suddenly there was cheap oil. But with the arrival of India and China on the world economic stage, it is likely that production of energy from now on will have difficulty keeping up with demand; sometime in the next five to ten years we probably face the prospect of the slow but falling production of light and medium crude. The first victims of tight energy supplies will be the poorer countries of the third world (not China and India which now have enough economic clout to stay in the oil game despite large segments of their population that are poor). Countries that lose oil are going to become unstable. Countries that now have oil but that don't bother to build a true self-sustaining economy (and this includes several countries in the Middle East and elsewhere) are also going to become increasingly unstable. At the moment, neither the left or right has a fully fleshed-out philosophy for dealing with these new realities (or maybe old since Pakistan's trouble over the last thirty years can be traced partly to the oil crisis of the 70s). It is entirely probable that we will soon be facing ethical questions of what kind of country we wish to be as the energy picture becomes clearer; so far, our answers to the ethical questions we're already facing reflect poorly on who we like to think of ourselves as a nation.

If Bush's purpose for invading Iraq was oil, he has only succeeded in making our energy future more precarious rather than less so. Killing people for oil or occupying oil-producing countries is not going to make us secure. That only invites alliances elsewhere that will work against us in the long run. Americans may not like it but the world now has a vested interest in keeping the United States economically viable. We will remain for some time to come the economic engine of the world. If we fall, the world falls. Our future security will require a reexamination of how the American economy functions and why, as just one example, we have so little alternative energy compared to Europe and Japan. We will have no choice but to look at likely problems such as global warming, food sustainability and the growing signs of worldwide pollution (instead of pollution, think in terms of growing toxicity and the time needed for the environment to safely absorb that toxicity in the face of 6.5 billion people and growing).

We still need a military. But a flexible military that can put out international wildfires and set up real peace-keeping duties without sneering at the job will be required for the next few decades. And we will need allies to help carry the load because we're going to see things we haven't seen before that are going to have a major impact and we simply won't be able to do the job alone.

[J Thomas]

I'm disturbed by the idea that we should keep failed programs because they're too far along or done deals.

That reminds me too much of staying in a lost war because we want to justify the past casualties.

If we're sure it doesn't work, get rid of it. We save on maintenance, training, and continuing costs. Stuff we can salvage from the project is worth salvaging, but don't continue a failed program just because it has momentum.

Maybe we could take the money that would go to each congressional district and just give it to those districts? Who knows, they might find something useful to do with it. Hiring people to work on weapon systems that don't work is worse than just embezzling the money -- we waste labor and resources that otherwise would be free to do something productive.