Ready for More Bailouts? Congress Debates Corporate Welfare, Ignores Free-Market Reforms
October 5, 2008
October 5, 2008
Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Air Force’s Problems Reflect Current National Security Challenges
Guest Column | By Col. Kenneth Allard (US Army, ret.) | June 13, 2008
The
stated rationale was a failure to insure proper control over the
nuclear weapons, safeguarded by their service as a special trust for
the nation. So when defense secretary Robert Gates fired the two top
leaders of the US Air Force last week, most editorial writers
applauded. The Boston Globe sniffed that the secretary's "insistence on high standards is just what the military needs" while the Miami Herald suggested that such firings should happen more often. "If Mr. Gates'
bold move catches on in Washington, who knows where it could lead? (To)
better job performance, we hope."
Fair points: but easy enough to
say when you only have to worry about putting the words on paper. But
tougher, far tougher to do if you exercise the heavy responsibilities
of Secretary Michael Wynne or Gen. Michael Moseley, the two officials
who were fired though in no way disgraced. Especially Moseley, who
commanded the first two post-9/11 air campaigns. Over the notoriously
unforgiving outback of Afghanistan, his B-52 pilots pioneered the
initial wartime use of GPS-guided smart bombs. With seamless electronic
linkages between bombers, Predator reconnaissance drones and special
forces mounted on horseback, the American military achieved a victory
in weeks that history's most legendary armies never achieved in years.
Along the way, they reached levels of joint teamwork and truly lethal
combat efficiency that could hardly have been imagined even months
before.
Problem is: Afghanistan and Iraq are only our latest
wars. For most of the last 20 years, the air weapon has been the
mainstay whenever American power was applied to international conflicts
that had supposedly ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Years
before 9/11, I flew on training exercises with AWACS crews who
routinely spent 200 nights each year on "temporary duty" away from
their home stations - and of course their families. Since the attacks
of 2001, the other military branches have also experienced the repeated
deployments and personal sacrifices that accompany war. The Air Force
has simply been at it for a lot longer.
After a while though,
little things inevitably start to go wrong. Continue doing more with
less and big things go awry too. Think the movie Snakes on a Plane was terrifying? Then try explaining how nuclear missiles somehow wound
up on an aircraft without the crew even knowing they were on board. Or
how nuclear triggers were mysteriously misrouted to Taiwan - and no one
even noticed for two years. Those things may be inevitable in a service
straining to meet wartime requirements, but more than enough to drive
you crazy or to get someone fired.
None of my Air Force
colleagues were particularly surprised by last week's events, most
having seen it coming. Others doubt that changing the names on E-Ring
doors will have more than symbolic value. Whit Peters, a highly
regarded air force secretary under President Clinton, points to
something deeper: the constant cultural tension between the todays and
tomorrows. "With budgets and programs stretched so thin, the urgency of
the moment usually overwhelms considerations for the future." One
example: balancing expensive state-of-the art fighters like the new
F-22 against the operational airpower needed every day in Iraq - 1,300
air strikes in 2007 alone as Gates pointed out in a Monday speech.
Modernizing
rapidly aging aircraft also competes with new Air Force missions such
as space, surveillance and cyber defense, some of them being explored
every day right here in San Antonio. Those new disciplines may
eventually change everything about the Air Force culture, much as the
19th century navy went from clipper ships to battleships by navigating
carefully through wrenching adjustments to steam, steel and 12-inch
guns.
So why even think about such things with SAT scores
slipping, gasoline prices skyrocketing and many among us intent on the
unilateral beating of swords into plowshares? I can suggest two primary
reasons. Plato may have been right in suggesting that only the dead
have seen the end of war. And if he was, then you never want to get
into one where you don't have close air support.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Colonel (Ret.) Ken Allard is an executive-in-residence at UTSA and the author of “Warheads.” Email him at An earlier version of this column appeared in the San Antonio Express-News.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
5 Comments | Post a Comment
Bush and crew are spending billions a week, deploying Reserve and Guard members to secure the borders of Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, while our borders go unprotected.
Interesting that none of the current, popular Presidential candidates will change this scenario.
While I’m at it, the above isn’t the main reason for the $4 gasoline and the $3 gallon of milk.
The answer isn’t more fighters or deployment of people anyplace on earth, rather, the answer lies with the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the phony monetary policies that have taken this country to its knees. In other words, we’ve been had by our own elected government officials, who care nothing about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or your freedom.
DEMAND an answer today from your Congress.
Dennis - way to go.
But where are you getting $3 milk. It’s hovering around $4.50 here.
Nope, the change for our border will almost certainly be amnesty. It was one of this President’s first stated goals - I’m thinking this next one will make it legal.
We have had total amnesty - in reality - if not in law.
Ladytexan,
From a warm Denver...well, as for the milk, I don’t drink it, hence rarely buy it, but a few years ago we sat around talking about also about the $3 loaf of bread!
Halting the printing presses would be the first thing that I would do, and hence get rid of the central bankers.
The current popular candidates would do neither, but what they would do would be to swing the doors open wider on our borders while allowing the illegals to remain on their doles.
All the best,
Dennis
Dennis, I think we can count on even wider borders and complete amnesty - no matter which of these people get elected - and no matter who is in Congress.
The people could change it - but they won’t. They continually think somehow our government will wake up and work in our best interest.
June 16 at 10:19 am | #1 | Link
Great! Now this gives me that warm fuzzy feeling of Safety First! Leave it to the Damocratic controlled Congress for a certain foul-up!