Democrats Need to “Take the Offense on Defense”
Military officers identify themselves as Republicans eight times
more often than as Democrats, according to Steven J. Nider. In an
article he wrote for the Democrat Leadership Council’s magazine,
Nider said, “Democrats need to begin rebuilding bridges to
men and women in uniform.”
The flare-up over absentee military ballots in Florida last year
serves as an example of the importance of military voters. Nider
said that calls from service members flooded Capitol Hill, mainly
to “express their anger over what they considered to be a
systematic attempt by Democrats to exclude many ballots cast by
members of the military.”
Reasons attributed for the increasing partisan identification in
military voters goes back to the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War defeat
“had a profound effect; many members of the military blamed
vocal critics in the Democratic Party for it,” Nider said.
Also, the Reagan administration in the 1980s shored up the defense
budget, making “many in the military feel the Republican administration
gave them the respect and resources they deserved.”
Democrats should speak out on issues that matter to the military,
as well as “take the offense on defense,” Nider suggested.
“They must seize ownership of such issues as missile defense
and military transformation. Democrats should embrace a ‘third
way’ on missile defense strategy that weaves it into a broader
strategy of homeland defense, deploys if and only if it becomes
feasible, and shares it with other nations to promote stability.”
By weighing in, and contributing to the debate on defense, “Democrats
can not only play a pivotal role in shaping military culture, but
also win back the support of voters in uniform,” he concluded.
Space-Based Radar: Pentagon Backs Program
A space-based radar program is coming back to the Defense Department,
in the form of a joint Army-Air Force office run by two three-star
generals.
In the aftermath of the cancellation of Discoverer II last year,
congressional and military supporters of space-based radar have
been working to resuscitate the program, which the Army views as
a “critical” system for the future force, said Army
Col. Glen Collins Jr., director of force development.
The SBR received $50 million in the Pentagon’s fiscal year
2002 budget.
A joint program office will be set up to kick-start a new SBR program,
said Army Lt. Gen. Joseph M. Cosumano Jr., head of the Space and
Missile Defense Command, in Huntsville, Ala. Cosumano will share
that office with Air Force Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold, who runs the Space
and Missile Center, in Los Angeles.
“The Army and the Air Force are ‘rock solid’
about what SBR will be,” Cosumano told reporters. “It’ll
be more successful this time.”
Missile Defense Advocacy Group Seeks Funding
A new foundation organized primarily to whip up public support for
a national missile defense system is having trouble raising money
to finance its ambitious educational programs.
The Washington, D.C.-based S.A.F.E. Foundation (Safeguarding America
For Everyone), conducts “non-partisan study, analysis and
research in the field of national defense policy and weapons systems,
primarily to educate the public on the need for a missile defense
system,” said its president, Kevin M. Generous, at a recent
briefing for defense industry officials. The group’s agenda
also includes addressing threats from weapons of mass destruction,
cyber warfare and terrorism, but the emphasis, thus far, has been
on missile defense, Generous said.
The foundation sponsors public conferences, lectures, seminars
and workshops in Washington and around the nation. It also operates
a web site (www.safefoundation.org). These operations will cost
about $5 million per year, Generous estimated. The foundation hopes
to raise this money from companies in the defense industry and private
philanthropic organizations.
The Boeing Company has provided “some seed money,”
Generous said, and the foundation is approaching other corporations,
such as TRW and Lockheed. But it hasn’t been easy going. “One
foundation told me that it had lost $100 million in the stock market
last year,” he said.
More Counter-Proliferation Needed, Says Tauscher
“The military really believed that help was ‘on the
way’ when (Vice President Dick) Cheney said that, but it is
turning out that help is only coming if you work at the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.
“It is important for us to have national missile defense (NMD),
but there must be non-proliferation and counter-proliferation efforts
too,” she said. Tauscher, a self-described “centrist”
who serves on the House Armed Services committee, recently spoke
to a roundtable of defense reporters. “NMD has become such
a predominating litmus test: there is the appearance that you can’t
be pro-defense if you’re not pro-NMD—but it is really
just one arrow in the quiver,” she said.
Tauscher said that the administration should focus on the reduction
of the nuclear arsenals instead of NMD. “It is wrong the way
that NMD has become a prism through which they’re [the administration]
looking at everything else,” she said. To attempt to change
the focus of NMD to non- and counter-proliferation, Tauscher has
introduced the Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001 with Rep. John
Spratt, D-S.C. The goal of the legislation is to “reduce the
threat of the use of nuclear weapons as a result of an accident,
miscalculation or terrorist act,” she said. Sen. Mary Landrieu,
D-La., is the sponsor of the Senate’s companion legislation.
“The Torch” To Chair Subcommittee on Asia?
Democratic Sen. Robert “The Torch” Torricelli, the senior
senator from New Jersey, who faces a federal investigation on charges
of campaign fraud, said he hopes to become chairman of a newly-created
subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations committee on central
Asia. Since the Democrats took the majority, some have questioned
Sen. Joseph Biden’s (D-Del.) decision to maintain his post
as both committee on foreign relations chair and European relations
subcommittee chair, especially since the embattled Torricelli has
lobbied so hard for a subcommittee chairmanship. Such a post could
help elevate him in the eyes of voters and minimize any effects
of bad press related to his campaign funding scandal, many have
explained. Assuming he gets the nod, Torricelli will take the gavel
on the central Asia subcommittee, which will have jurisdiction over
the former Soviet Union and the Caspian Sea region.
Lynn Weil, press secretary for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
explained that at an ambassador confirmation hearing in July, Sen.
Biden said the central Asia region was “very important,”
and indicated that he had discussed the possible creation of the
new subcommittee led by Torricelli. At press time, Torricelli's
spokeswoman said that the assignment had not been confirmed.
Sen. Biden could not be reached for comment because he was leading
a congressional delegation to central Asia.
BRAC by Any Other Name Is Still BRAC
Given slim congressional support for base closures, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld has told lawmakers that the Pentagon is not necessarily
looking to shut down entire facilities, but rather to make them
“efficient.” Thus, the concept of Efficient Facilities
Initiative, or EFI.
Rumsfeld recently sent a proposal to the Hill, calling for a new
single round of base closures in 2003. The plan is called the Efficient
Facilities Initiative of 2001. The draft legislation would improve
the previous base closure process by “ensuring the priority
of military value” in the decision process, said Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Pete Aldridge.
During a news conference, Aldridge said that the secretary of defense
would conduct a comprehensive review of all Defense Department installations.
His recommendations would be made to an independent commission by
March 14, 2003. That commission will then review the recommendations
and send its own to the president by July 7, 2003. The president
will have two weeks (until July 22, 2003) to accept or reject the
commission’s recommendations on an “all or none”
basis.
According to Aldridge, the Pentagon could reap savings of up to
$7 billion a year, beginning in 2007.
Roche Says Air Force Needs Funding for Research
“How in heaven’s name can we set in motion what’s
needed so that there is innovation 10 years from now?” asked
Air Force Secretary James Roche at a recent aerospace power seminar.
“There is something sick here, gang,” he said, noting
that the F-22, being developed as the Air Force’s flagship
aircraft, is already 20 years old.
Roche said he has four goals going into his job as secretary of
the Air Force. “One is to work with my colleagues to have
a strategy we can explain to everyone for this era. Two is people:
we’re going to have to fit in how to think about the people.”
Third, Roche said, was the concern about saving money, and fourth,
is his goal to support innovation, research and development.
Roche indicated that more research must be done in the area of
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).
Outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan shares Roche’s
enthusiasm for ISR. Ryan indicated at a separate meeting with defense
reporters that ISR represents an “unfunded” need. “There
is a huge demand for ISR out in the military and national security
community. If the CINCs had their way, they would have every asset
we have, in theater and operating,” completely dedicated to
ISR. “We will never fill that demand,” he said.
Though he supports and sees the need for additional funding for
ISR, Roche said, “we’ve got to work through our plans
to fit realistic budgets. We’re not expecting a whole lot
of money from Congress. We’re expecting Congress to tell us…‘grow
up, look at yourselves, get rid of what you don’t need, buy
what you do, and deliver on what you said.’”
Ryan was somewhat hopeful that ISR funding will be increased in
the following years, though he indicated that the money would not
become available unless the Quadrennial Defense Review validates
the need for ISR. “I think the [upcoming] QDR will reflect
it, that we need to better fund and proliferate our ISR assets,”
he said.
Freshman Rep. Opposes Base Closures
Rep. Ed Schrock, a Republican freshman on the House Armed Services
Committee, who represents the Navy-rich area of Norfolk, Va., made
a forceful statement opposing the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process, even as Rumsfeld indicated his own plans for EFI. “I
will fight any attempt to move bases or commands out of the Hampton
Roads region,” Schrock said. “I will not support another
round of base closings unless the process is fair and there is an
equal opportunity for every community to make the case that civilian
encroachment around military facilities is not a detriment to their
region,” he said.
New Concern Voiced Over Alaskan Missile Site
Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), and John Spratt
(D-S.C.) sent a letter to Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) citing concerns about the military
construction funding of a missile “test-bed” in Fort
Greely, Alaska. The letter states that justification for Fort Greely
funding in the 2001 budget was for the “initial construction
of national missile defense (NMD) deployment facilities and not
for construction of test facilities.” However, the 2002 budget
justification allocates money for a national missile defense “test-bed.”
The Congressmen argued that “if the construction planned
for Fort Greely is truly for testing, we believe that the Fiscal
Year 2001 military construction appropriation for deployment cannot
be used.
“When Congress appropriated military construction funding
for the NMD system, we were acting in response to a request from
the Clinton administration. The ‘emergency system’ now
proposed by the Bush administration is materially different…We
believe the differences are significant enough that the department
would be violating the spirit of the law if you were to use the
Fiscal Year 2001 funding for this different system.” If the
site is constructed to conduct testing, they argued, then the United
States could stand in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty, which outlaws testing.