Multi-Billion Dollar U.S. Global Military: Defending Everything, Nothing
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20111009/OPINION02/110090310
Lancaster Eagle Gazette
October 9, 2011
Where should we defend?
By Richard Scamehorn
"He who defends everything, defends nothing."
These words of Frederick the Great, the King of Prussia in the late 18th century, still hold true for today's military strategy. It is the most significant issue facing America's military strategists, and it is not being satisfactorily resolved.
Today, we are attempting to defend every existing democracy - and even those that might become democratic. These include Taiwan, Korea and Japan in the Western Pacific, Somalia in Africa, Western Europe with NATO, Israel and Iraq in the Middle East, Bosnia in Eastern Europe and even Afghanistan, where there is no hope for democracy.
In short, we are defending everything.
As we attempt to accomplish this task, the cost has been staggering. The Department of Defense budget, running around $400 billion per year during the 1990s, climbed 50 percent to around $600 billion in the early 2000s and continues at that level.
The U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor supersonic fighter is a prime example of the cost to develop a defense system. The original program called for 381 aircraft, but it was whittled-down to "only" 183 because Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the plane was "designed in the 80s to fight an enemy [the Soviets] that no longer exists."
The F-22 fighters cost an incredible $361 million apiece, now being "upgraded" at additional cost of $21 million per plane. These planes require 34 hours of high-tech maintenance for each hour of flight -- $49,808 for each hour.
The cost of the aircraft was at $699 billion; maintenance, spare parts and pilot training blossomed this defense program to $1 trillion.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a similar story. This plane is designed to provide ground support of our troops in enemy combat, such as the fighting in the Middle East and North Africa. Problems with the F-35 delayed its operational date from 2004 until 2016. That is long after we will be withdrawn from Iraq and hopefully from Afghanistan.
This is deja-vu the F-22. The F-35 was designed in the 1990s to fight in the 2000s against an enemy we no longer will be engaged against in 2016. The total program-life cost of the F-35 program is planned at $1 trillion. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the F-35 "a train wreck."
The U.S. Navy complains its ships are becoming obsolete. Notwithstanding, the Nimitz-class super-carrier George H.W. Bush still is being completed at Newport News. With the planes it will carry, the vessel's cost is $9 billion. This is but one of a series of 10. The total cost of the "hardware" is $90 billion, but this defense strategy also requires a total crew of 60,000 sailors. The life-span cost of this defense program is more than a quarter trillion dollars.
The most difficult defense strategy to evaluate is that of cyberspace. There is no argument that if an enemy were able to shut down cyber-systems, our entire defense systems would be immobilized. This problem is much more than simply computer-to-computer talk. It includes most of our satellites, including the entire Global Positioning System satellites used for surgical target-pinpointing.
The Pentagon occasionally admits someone hacked into a section of their database, which only proves the system is vulnerable. Recently, House Intelligence chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Chinese cyberattacks have "reached an intolerable level."
The details of this defense system are highly classified. Most of the U.S. military are not privy to this area of defense - and the cost is equally classified.
The question is, where we should defend?
» Against a mega-attack by a super-power with the Nimitz carrier task forces?
» Against ground-force insurgents - that of the Arab world - using the F-35?
» Against a cyberwar attack?
» Against a high-tech air-combat war with the F-22?
» Against everything - as we now are doing?
The "everything" strategy simply is not viable if the defense budget will be reduced.
One of the tasks of the new Congressional Super Committee is to reduce the Pentagon's budget. In the spirit of today's Washington, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said, "I'm off the committee if we're going to talk about further defense cuts." Kyl is the second ranking Republican in the Senate. House Republicans want the defense budget increased.
Follow-up: I had written some months ago about the F-35 being "a train wreck." Shortly following, the Lancaster Eagle Gazette received an email message from a Defense Department individual attempting to refute part of my writing. Because of how it was worded, we both agreed it was a government "no-denial-denial."
Big Brother is watching.
Scamehorn is a longtime resident of Lancaster, Ohio University's executive-in-resident emeritus and former president of Diamond Power. He has traveled extensively in the business arena and enjoys history.
KOMINFORM
http://www.kominform.eu
0 comments:
Post a Comment