Old Pentagon Contracts vs. 21st Century Security

by: David Sirota

Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:00

What's amazing, of course, is not only that spending increases are billed as "gutting" funding, but that the criticism is coming at precisely a time when world events suggest we should reconsider some of the ways we spend defense resources. Specifically, notice this piece in the Washington Independent:

The trouble, experts say, is that beyond the rescue lie warning signs about continued threats from low-tech adversaries operating in shallow waters. The current U.S. Naval strategy, written under then-Navy chief Adm. Mike Mullen - now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - has won plaudits for emphasizing increased international maritime cooperation. But reformers say it hasn't gone far enough to restructure the Navy around low-intensity operations and support to special operations forces, rather than operations far out at sea.

It's true - if the Somali pirate situation reiterated anything, it is that increasingly, the most dangerous national security threats come from low-tech, stateless operations - operations that Cold War-era weapons systems may be less effective in tackling. And really, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda should have taught us that already.

So really, what conservative criticism shouldn't be seen as a "tough on defense" posture - it should be seen as a defense of the same specific Pentagon contracts, no matter how outdated they are. This isn't a debate about defense - it is a debate about the kind of defense that is appropriate in the 21st century. The Right seems to think we're still fighting the Cold War, and the Obama administration wants us to be ready for 21st century challenges - and thankfully, the latter is in control right now.