OpEd:
The F-22: A Bureaucratic Failure to Understand War
July 23, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: Congress, Federal Budget, Future, Military, Obama, Technology, War, Weapons
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
War is unpredictable and largely unforeseeable – most especially in the manner in which it will be fought.
Why, then, does the United States continue to insist that the “future of war” for America will be mostly in the guerrilla style seen with terrorist organizations? Has both the Pentagon and Congress forgotten the lessons of military history? In preparing a country for future self-defense, or aggressive actions, focusing on the struggles of the present inevitably fails to meet the needs of the future, producing technology and methodologies that is hopelessly unsuited to the now-present theatre of war.
The street-by-street method of war currently being used by American military in counter-terrorism efforts is relatively new, and all branches of the military were largely unprepared for it – in terms of both training and equipment. However, modern troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern locales are almost exactly opposite their peers of a decade ago: their training, equipment, and weaponry is designed and tested heavily to cater to their needs in the closed-in, chaotic environments. The retooling of the military, with a heavy focus on the Army, for urban battlefields has taken many years, but resulted in better personnel gear, the reliance on (and improvement of) unmanned drones, and a rethinking of certain military strategies.
However, the Middle East, and other counter-terrorist or black ops conflicts, are not the only battlefields. True, America is currently embroiled in physical conflicts that classify as counter-terrorism, but other threats from various sources could easily erupt into more violent interactions that would be more akin to “classical warfare” – such as North Korea, China, and Russia. These potential conflicts, or even wars, would be much different from the United States’ current military interests.
In terms of sheer manpower, all three of these potential enemies outnumber the American military by significant ratios – fighting such countries in “hand-to-hand” combat would be both pointless and devastating. These conflicts would be fought, and won, in a more traditional manner resembling more the World Wars than Afghanistan: via air and sea power. Despite this simple, and obvious, fact, funding has been continuously cut to “next generation weapons” over the last decade to focus on the lowly footsoldier, rather than devastating and effective weapons that could start, fight, and finish wars without the death or injury of any American military, and the F-22 Raptor is merely the latest and most public example.
Congress, along with President Obama, has stopped the financing of additional F-22 Raptor fighter jets, claiming that the current 187 Raptor jets in the fleet is enough to serve the country. To put that in perspective, that equates to slightly more than three jets per state if they were to be distributed evenly and domestically, or barely enough to canvas each coast with overlapping defensive areas. Basic analysis shows that 187 stealth, nextgen fighters is not as large a force as one might assume, especially given that modern aircraft carriers hold an average of 48 fighter jets, not to mention that most of the airfleet, such as F-16’s, are the aging products of decades past.
This is not to say, however, that air and sea power is being ignored, because they are, most definitively, not. Certain aspects of what could be classified as “future classical warfare” are being heavily invested in, such as space-based laser weaponry, country-wide protection defense systems, and highly efficient/intelligent drone vehicles. But it is the progress of the recent years that presents a worrying trend, not the lack of modern programs: the tendency to eschew advanced weaponry, gear, or otherwise technology for more immediately applicable technology to the current battlefields. Time and time again, empires and countries alike focused on handling their immediate military needs over innovation and the advancement of their future forces, and ultimately met their own demise as a result – Imperialist England and Cold War Russia are simple proof.
Congress, and the rest of American Bureaucracy, are in a unique position to effect the military investments without having the knowledge, foresight, and impartial judgment necessary to make appropriate decisions – similar problems can be found in Congressional oversight of agencies such as the CIA, who are tasked for intelligence appropriation, but are criticized in a public forum for acting, or planning to act, in accordance with their mandate: protecting the United States via operations on foreign soil. The simple ignorance of many Congressmen is astounding, and is only magnified by giving the same individuals the capacity to approve military budgets when they have, on the whole, little to no knowledge of the needs of the military, let alone any knowledge of details outside basic costs.
Admittedly, the combined budget of the United States Air Force, Army, and Navy is quite an astounding figure, rounding out at an estimated $367 billion per year - not including general "Defense Wide" expenditures. This could likely be cut in any number of ways, such as addressing overspending on certain contracts where bidding is inflated on the principle that "the government can afford it". But the place to do so is absolutely not cutting investments in the future, new technology, or any other advancements that could save American lives while retaining, or increasing, the country’s military dominance – the F-22 is just the tip of the government-funded iceberg.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
