International Herald Tribune Editorial - U.S. military (mis)spending
International Herald Tribune Editorial - U.S. military (mis)spending
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: July 24, 2007
The delay in the U.S. Senate's consideration of the bill authorizing next year's $650 billion military budget created an unexpected opportunity for lawmakers.
The measure, larded with the usual billions in weapons more suited for another era, seemed headed for routine approval when it became snarled in the debate over Iraq and was pulled from the floor. That gives the Senate and the public an unexpected chance to reflect on the frightening disconnect between the exotic and unlikely threats the Pentagon spends so much of its investment money preparing for and the 21st century wars America has actually been fighting.
Democrats in Congress have already made some useful changes to the administration's original requests. The House of Representatives cut back on spending for new nuclear weapons and missile defense and used some of the savings to pay for more mine-resistant armored vehicles for Iraq and a bigger military pay raise. The Senate Armed Services Committee added money for nonproliferation programs like those that help pay for improved security at Russian nuclear storage sites.
But even if all those positive changes survive and are signed into law, they will reallocate at most a tiny fraction of overall spending.
The bill still channels unneeded billions to gold-plated marvels like the Air Force's F/A-22 stealth fighter and the Navy's new DDG-1000 destroyer and Virginia class attack submarines, while scandalously shortchanging the needs of Army and Marine ground forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. America cannot afford to go on getting its basic security priorities wrong year after year by investing in the kind of weapons that might have made sense during the Cold War but have little use in the kind of conflicts America is involved in and is likely to face in the foreseeable future.
Defending Americans from today's terrorists and other threats will require fewer air-to-air combat jets, big stealthy ships and submarines. It will require better-protected ground troops and larger investments in diplomacy, peacemaking and eliminating dangerous nuclear materials.
The Senate needs to make a more ambitious start on that long overdue transformation.
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: July 24, 2007
The delay in the U.S. Senate's consideration of the bill authorizing next year's $650 billion military budget created an unexpected opportunity for lawmakers.
The measure, larded with the usual billions in weapons more suited for another era, seemed headed for routine approval when it became snarled in the debate over Iraq and was pulled from the floor. That gives the Senate and the public an unexpected chance to reflect on the frightening disconnect between the exotic and unlikely threats the Pentagon spends so much of its investment money preparing for and the 21st century wars America has actually been fighting.
Democrats in Congress have already made some useful changes to the administration's original requests. The House of Representatives cut back on spending for new nuclear weapons and missile defense and used some of the savings to pay for more mine-resistant armored vehicles for Iraq and a bigger military pay raise. The Senate Armed Services Committee added money for nonproliferation programs like those that help pay for improved security at Russian nuclear storage sites.
But even if all those positive changes survive and are signed into law, they will reallocate at most a tiny fraction of overall spending.
The bill still channels unneeded billions to gold-plated marvels like the Air Force's F/A-22 stealth fighter and the Navy's new DDG-1000 destroyer and Virginia class attack submarines, while scandalously shortchanging the needs of Army and Marine ground forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. America cannot afford to go on getting its basic security priorities wrong year after year by investing in the kind of weapons that might have made sense during the Cold War but have little use in the kind of conflicts America is involved in and is likely to face in the foreseeable future.
Defending Americans from today's terrorists and other threats will require fewer air-to-air combat jets, big stealthy ships and submarines. It will require better-protected ground troops and larger investments in diplomacy, peacemaking and eliminating dangerous nuclear materials.
The Senate needs to make a more ambitious start on that long overdue transformation.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home