Washington has been expecting a showdown between the defense secretary and Congress over his plan to radically overhaul the Pentagon's arsenal. That fight may finally go down, after a key House panel defied Robert Gates Wednesday by adding money to keep making stealth fighter planes -- with an apparent assist from a top Air Force general.
Two-and-a-half months ago, Defense Secretary Gates proposed the most sweeping Pentagon overhaul in nearly 20 years. The plan eliminated funding or scaled back resources for all sorts of high-priced, high-tech, big-war weapons projects that had been previously untouchable, things like advanced jets, missile interceptors and next-gen tanks. Instead, Gates called for funding more troops and more drones, weapons more suitable for today's fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet, for nearly 75 days, opposition to the plan -- from Congress, from the armed services, from the defense industry -- has been token, at best. No major Democratic defections on the Hill, despite the potential loss of manufacturing jobs in their districts. No big advertising pushes from the arms-makers, despite the obvious threat to their cash cows. None of the traditional back-channel efforts by the generals to keep their pet programs. Just a few neocon op-eds, and some grumbling from congressional Republicans.
Yesterday, however, things changed. Republicans managed to peel off just enough Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to add $369 million to keep up production of the Air Force's prized F-22 Raptor stealth jet. That means 12 more fighters built next year -- 12 fighters Gates has made clear he doesn't want or need. If the Raptor increase is approved by the other relevant congressional committees, that could open up the flood gates of opposition, with other ad hoc coalitions forming to keep funds for the Airborne Laser missile-zapping boondoggle, or the Navy's massive (and massively overbudget) DDG-1000 destroyer. "[The Pentagon] needs to learn who's in charge, and the Congress is," House Armed Services Committee Democrat Neil Abercrombie told the Christian Science Monitor.
So now the questions are: Will the extra money stick? What does this mean for the secretary's other cuts, to things like missile defense and hulking battleships? And would the president consider a veto, if Congress doesn't go along with Gates' plan?
The defense secretary is speaking with key congressional leaders, letting them know which changes are potential red lines for him, and which ones he just might accept. More Raptors is an absolute deal-breaker for him. Gates has said over and over again that 187 of the dogfighters is just plenty. Especially since the Raptors, originally commissioned to duel with Soviet MiGs, have never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. "Everybody knows where the secretary and the president stand on the F-22," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, in an unusually terse statement. In other words: Obama has Gates' back on this. There might even be a veto, congressmen, if you push too far.
Judging from past public statements, I'd say the same goes for trying to piece together the Army's "Future Combat Systems" family of armored vehicles ("an expensive disaster," Gates all but called it); for trying to restore money to programs like the Airborne Laser ("significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable"); or for resurrecting the disastrous VH-71 helicopter program ("a poster child for an acquisition process gone seriously wrong"). But I'd wager Gates does have some flexibility over the number of missile interceptors he's willing to take; he recently said the choice to buy only 30 of the ground-based, mid-course interceptors was "not a forever decision."
Meanwhile, the tussle over the Raptors continues. Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop believes that 187 jets is "frighteningly low," because of the threat that Russia and China may one day build fighters than can compete with the Mach 2 Raptors. Retired Air Force officials, who still maintain their ties to Congress, agree. Yesterday's vote was "absolutely the right thing to do," one former senior military officer told Danger Room. "The number 187 has no [military] analysis as a basis."
In a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), four-star Gen. John Corley, the current chief of Air Combat Command, wrote, "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term... To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy."
Air Force Secretary Michael Donnelly and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have already walked back Corley's note. "We assessed the F-22 by taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs within the context of available resources. After carefully considering a full range of views and alternatives, including those expressed by Gen. Corley, we recommended to Secretary Gates that other priority Air Force programs should not be reduced in order to fund additional F-22s beyond the program of record," the pair said in a statement.
But opponents of the president are girding up for a new fight. "Resistance to the Obama administration's massive defense cuts is more substantial than what might have been apparent at first glance," writes Michael Goldfarb over at the Weekly Standard.
UPDATE: At a press conference Thursday, Gates was asked for his reaction to the House vote. His answer: "I have a big problem with it."
[Photo: DoD]
ALSO:
- Gates Pushes for Radical Overhaul of Pentagon Arsenal
- Congress Shoves Back on Pentagon Reboot (Updated)
- Robert Gates is Not a Hippie
- Gates: Why I Stopped the Stealth Jets
- Stealth Jet Gets Online Push, as a Jobs Program
- Pentagon, Congress Square Off Over Uncoventional War Shift ...
- Gates: Air Force Must Do More (Updated)
- Gates: F-22 Has No Role in War on Terror
- Gates: Time for the Pentagon to Actually Wage War
