The Military-industrial complex
This term was not coined by pot-smoking peace activists of the late sixties, but by outgoing president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address (as always, Wikipedia has more). Much has been written on the pernicious effects of Military-industrial complex on society as a whole: urgent social problems and irreseponsible budget defecits go unattended because building a new weapons system is so profitable and Congress is so buyable.
But the MIC also has horrible negative effects on the military itself. This MSNBC story (via Taylor Marsh) illustrates this. It seems as though the army would rather have Raytheon develop an anti-RPG vehicle defense system from scratch than purchase one already available from an Israeli company. The development would take a minimum of five years, the Israeli "Trophy" system is apparently available now. I don't have the expertise to judge the pros and cons of the Trophy system, but whatever its drawbacks it seems it would be more effective than no system. Unlike liquids on planes, RPGs are a proven threat and a favorite weapon of inurgents everywhere, not just Iraq (War Nerd gave it his "Claymore Special Lifetime Award" in 2003). Is it simply not cost effective to outfit our vehicles with these devices? Would the Raytheon system be cheaper? Or are our troops just getting the shaft because of some corrupt procurement practice?
Warmongering is sick, evil and wrong. But those in power aren't even real warmongers: a real warmonger would want our fighting vehicles to be as powerful as possible. These guys are war profit mongers. I'd hate to be a soldier under this administration.
And this is not the first time I've heard such a story. Whether it's a new weapons system that the military doesn't particularly want but which happens to be manufactured in an influential congressperson's district, or some new body armor that might be better but the Army doesn't want the troops using it for goodness knows what reason, it seems that the safety of our troops and the effectiveness of our fighting forces isn't exactly priority #1 with the people who make the decisions. (Whatever happened with that Dragon Skin body armor controversy, by the way?)
We need to reform the way these decisions are made, because it's affecting our military competitiveness. I bet Iraqi insurgents aren't turning down useful hardware because of some bureaucratic turf war.
Of course, this post doesn't even begin to address the issue of when we should be using our military, and when we shouldn't be. These hardware questions are miniscule compared to that.
But the MIC also has horrible negative effects on the military itself. This MSNBC story (via Taylor Marsh) illustrates this. It seems as though the army would rather have Raytheon develop an anti-RPG vehicle defense system from scratch than purchase one already available from an Israeli company. The development would take a minimum of five years, the Israeli "Trophy" system is apparently available now. I don't have the expertise to judge the pros and cons of the Trophy system, but whatever its drawbacks it seems it would be more effective than no system. Unlike liquids on planes, RPGs are a proven threat and a favorite weapon of inurgents everywhere, not just Iraq (War Nerd gave it his "Claymore Special Lifetime Award" in 2003). Is it simply not cost effective to outfit our vehicles with these devices? Would the Raytheon system be cheaper? Or are our troops just getting the shaft because of some corrupt procurement practice?
Warmongering is sick, evil and wrong. But those in power aren't even real warmongers: a real warmonger would want our fighting vehicles to be as powerful as possible. These guys are war profit mongers. I'd hate to be a soldier under this administration.
And this is not the first time I've heard such a story. Whether it's a new weapons system that the military doesn't particularly want but which happens to be manufactured in an influential congressperson's district, or some new body armor that might be better but the Army doesn't want the troops using it for goodness knows what reason, it seems that the safety of our troops and the effectiveness of our fighting forces isn't exactly priority #1 with the people who make the decisions. (Whatever happened with that Dragon Skin body armor controversy, by the way?)
We need to reform the way these decisions are made, because it's affecting our military competitiveness. I bet Iraqi insurgents aren't turning down useful hardware because of some bureaucratic turf war.
Of course, this post doesn't even begin to address the issue of when we should be using our military, and when we shouldn't be. These hardware questions are miniscule compared to that.
Comments
By Kristin Roberts
Reuters
Friday, September 8, 2006; 5:56 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Army weapons buyer on Friday said an Israeli system billed as capable of knocking down rocket-propelled grenades has not been proven, and so will not be purchased and deployed to soldiers on the ground.
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, deputy for acquisition and systems management to the assistant secretary of the Army, rejected a recent report by NBC News that the Army blocked a plan to buy the Israeli system called Trophy because it would hurt the Army's push to build a completely new system.
While Trophy has moved through testing stages already, the new system being built by Raytheon Co. under a $70 million contract will start to roll out in fiscal 2010 at the earliest.
Sorenson, however, said Trophy is both not ready and does not meet Army requirements. He said no existing system to defend against rocket-propelled grenades meets requirements.
"We do not want to put something out there that gives the soldiers a false sense of security," Sorenson told reporters. "We will not put anything out there that we have not seen as demonstrated to be capable of doing what it's alleged to do."
More than 2,500 U.S. service members have died in Iraq. Attacks involving rocket-propelled grenades have killed more than 100 soldiers, far less than the number killed by roadside bombs, Sorenson said.
The system being built by Raytheon is part of the Army's Future Combat System modernization program, projected to cost an inflation-adjusted $161 billion over the next two decades. It is intended to use advanced communications to link troops with a family of 18 light, fast, manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles.
Raytheon's weapon to protect against rocket-propelled grenades would be incorporated onto those vehicles.
Sorenson said that while Trophy may be available sooner than Raytheon's system, it was not designed to fit requirements of the Future Combat System. He also said the Army had other concerns about Trophy, such as unintended damage created.
Trophy was developed by Rafael, the Israel Armament Development Authority. A spokesman for Rafael was not immediately available.
A spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee did not immediately respond to a query about whether the panel was investigating the Army's contract decision.
(Additional reporting by Jim Wolf)