F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
And this from the Lexington Institute-
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/default.asp -a bipartisan but
conservative defense strategic analysis think tank:
WHO'S THE BIGGEST DISARMER OF THE U.S. MILITARY IN RECENT HISTORY? NOT
WHO YOU MIGHT THINK
By Loren B. Thompson
The Baltimore Sun
June 3, 2004
WASHINGTON - Ever since Sen. John Kerry became the likely presidential
candidate of the Democratic Party, Republicans have been trying to
undercut his military credentials. Their basic message is that Mr. Kerry
is a vacillating liberal who votes against weapons essential to winning
the war on terrorists.
Despite finding only a handful of weapons that Mr. Kerry opposed over
decades of public service - most of which have little to do with
fighting terrorists - the Republican message has made an impression on
many voters.
Since President Bush never held a federal job prior to becoming
president, he has no record of past military decisions to defend.
His vice president does, though. A key reason why Dick Cheney was put on
the Republican ticket four years ago was to balance Mr. Bush's weak
military resume. Mr. Cheney never served in the military, but he did
serve six terms in Congress and ran the Pentagon during Operation Desert
Storm. He was widely viewed as a hard-liner on defense matters.
There's no question that Mr. Cheney has styled himself as something of a
super hawk, but when it comes to opposing weapons, his advisers seem to
be counting on no one looking closely at his record. The fact is that in
his brief four-year stint as defense secretary during the waning days of
the Cold War, Mr. Cheney terminated more weapons than every Democrat
combined over the previous four decades.
The depth and breadth of his cuts were so breathtaking that today the
military is still struggling to cope with some of the consequences. And
while the tenor of the times seemed to call for a drawdown in Cold War
forces, subsequent developments have made some of his decisions look
poorly conceived and wasteful.
In the case of the Air Force, Mr. Cheney recommended terminating both
its top-of-the-line F-15 fighter and its lower-cost F-16 fighter. He cut
the number of A-10 ground attack planes from 435 in 1990 to 159 in 1993,
with the intention of phasing the A-10 out completely. He delayed
development of the next-generation F/A-22 fighter while reducing both
the annual production rate and the final production goal - steps that
later led critics to claim the plane was unaffordable.
That's a lot of cutting for someone who often stressed the importance of
air superiority - but he didn't stop there. After saying in
congressional hearings that the military needed more airlift in the
future, he recommended cutting the next-generation C-17 cargo plane from
210 to 120 airframes. And after proposing in 1990 a reduction in the B-2
bomber program from 132 planes to 75 - which he said was the minimum
acceptable number - he proposed in 1992 to cease production at 20 planes.
Today, a dozen years later, many experts view these decisions with
regret. The Air Force eventually decided it needed even more C-17s than
the original 210, but in the process of going down and then back up, it
wasted $10 billion on uneconomical production plans. Military reformers
say that the United States should have bought many more B-2s for
conventional bombing missions; Mr. Cheney squandered a $30 billion
development program and left the Air Force with decrepit Eisenhower-era
B-52s for the foreseeable future.
Other services suffered similar devastation under Mr. Cheney.
The Army lost its only tank program (Abrams), its only infantry vehicle
(Bradley) and its only heavy attack helicopter (Apache). It also lost a
third of its active-duty divisions, which later led to greater reliance
on Reserves for combat support.
The Navy lost both of its submarine production programs (Trident and
Seawolf), its top-of-the-line F-14 fighter and its next-generation A-12
bomber (which Mr. Cheney terminated so ineptly that the case is still in
litigation today).
The Marine Corps, being scrappier than the other services, managed to
prevent Mr. Cheney from cutting its highest-priority aviation program,
the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor, by going to Congress. Mr. Cheney responded
by refusing to spend the money Congress appropriated until fellow
Republicans told him he was hurting the party. Today, the Pentagon
points to the Osprey as a prime example of military transformation.
There were so many weapons cuts under Mr. Cheney that by election year
1992, the Pentagon could claim credit for terminating "over 100 weapons
programs." Nobody knew then that B-2 bombers would play a central role
in the Balkan air war or that Abrams tanks would be critical to securing
Baghdad or that the military would need a system like the Osprey in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Cheney was the biggest unilateral disarmer in recent history, and
darned proud of it.
-----
Loren B. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute
and teaches emerging technology in Georgetown University's security
studies program.
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/default.asp -a bipartisan but
conservative defense strategic analysis think tank:
WHO'S THE BIGGEST DISARMER OF THE U.S. MILITARY IN RECENT HISTORY? NOT
WHO YOU MIGHT THINK
By Loren B. Thompson
The Baltimore Sun
June 3, 2004
WASHINGTON - Ever since Sen. John Kerry became the likely presidential
candidate of the Democratic Party, Republicans have been trying to
undercut his military credentials. Their basic message is that Mr. Kerry
is a vacillating liberal who votes against weapons essential to winning
the war on terrorists.
Despite finding only a handful of weapons that Mr. Kerry opposed over
decades of public service - most of which have little to do with
fighting terrorists - the Republican message has made an impression on
many voters.
Since President Bush never held a federal job prior to becoming
president, he has no record of past military decisions to defend.
His vice president does, though. A key reason why Dick Cheney was put on
the Republican ticket four years ago was to balance Mr. Bush's weak
military resume. Mr. Cheney never served in the military, but he did
serve six terms in Congress and ran the Pentagon during Operation Desert
Storm. He was widely viewed as a hard-liner on defense matters.
There's no question that Mr. Cheney has styled himself as something of a
super hawk, but when it comes to opposing weapons, his advisers seem to
be counting on no one looking closely at his record. The fact is that in
his brief four-year stint as defense secretary during the waning days of
the Cold War, Mr. Cheney terminated more weapons than every Democrat
combined over the previous four decades.
The depth and breadth of his cuts were so breathtaking that today the
military is still struggling to cope with some of the consequences. And
while the tenor of the times seemed to call for a drawdown in Cold War
forces, subsequent developments have made some of his decisions look
poorly conceived and wasteful.
In the case of the Air Force, Mr. Cheney recommended terminating both
its top-of-the-line F-15 fighter and its lower-cost F-16 fighter. He cut
the number of A-10 ground attack planes from 435 in 1990 to 159 in 1993,
with the intention of phasing the A-10 out completely. He delayed
development of the next-generation F/A-22 fighter while reducing both
the annual production rate and the final production goal - steps that
later led critics to claim the plane was unaffordable.
That's a lot of cutting for someone who often stressed the importance of
air superiority - but he didn't stop there. After saying in
congressional hearings that the military needed more airlift in the
future, he recommended cutting the next-generation C-17 cargo plane from
210 to 120 airframes. And after proposing in 1990 a reduction in the B-2
bomber program from 132 planes to 75 - which he said was the minimum
acceptable number - he proposed in 1992 to cease production at 20 planes.
Today, a dozen years later, many experts view these decisions with
regret. The Air Force eventually decided it needed even more C-17s than
the original 210, but in the process of going down and then back up, it
wasted $10 billion on uneconomical production plans. Military reformers
say that the United States should have bought many more B-2s for
conventional bombing missions; Mr. Cheney squandered a $30 billion
development program and left the Air Force with decrepit Eisenhower-era
B-52s for the foreseeable future.
Other services suffered similar devastation under Mr. Cheney.
The Army lost its only tank program (Abrams), its only infantry vehicle
(Bradley) and its only heavy attack helicopter (Apache). It also lost a
third of its active-duty divisions, which later led to greater reliance
on Reserves for combat support.
The Navy lost both of its submarine production programs (Trident and
Seawolf), its top-of-the-line F-14 fighter and its next-generation A-12
bomber (which Mr. Cheney terminated so ineptly that the case is still in
litigation today).
The Marine Corps, being scrappier than the other services, managed to
prevent Mr. Cheney from cutting its highest-priority aviation program,
the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor, by going to Congress. Mr. Cheney responded
by refusing to spend the money Congress appropriated until fellow
Republicans told him he was hurting the party. Today, the Pentagon
points to the Osprey as a prime example of military transformation.
There were so many weapons cuts under Mr. Cheney that by election year
1992, the Pentagon could claim credit for terminating "over 100 weapons
programs." Nobody knew then that B-2 bombers would play a central role
in the Balkan air war or that Abrams tanks would be critical to securing
Baghdad or that the military would need a system like the Osprey in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Cheney was the biggest unilateral disarmer in recent history, and
darned proud of it.
-----
Loren B. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute
and teaches emerging technology in Georgetown University's security
studies program.
about 'OT: Cheney and Disarming American Defense- THE Facts', on