• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The NYT: Talk Softly and Ditch that Anachronistic, Unproven, Cold War-Era Stick

    Pentagon (Photo by Newscom)

    The Pentagon’s major strategy known as the Quadrennial Defense Review was released this week. It immediately drew praise from the New York Times’ editorial titled “The Defense Budget” for cutting weapons programs—although not nearly enough—and for acknowledging a decline by choice regarding the role of the United States in the world.

    The editorial singles out the cancellation of the C-17 transport plane, the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and the F-22 fifth-generation fighter for applause, and dismisses them as “anachronistic and unnecessary.”  The article’s stock-in-trade is a litany of recycled sound bites about “still unproven” missile defense, “cold war relic” weapons, how the Pentagon must make “tough choices,” and how America cannot afford to write the Pentagon “a blank check.”

    Worse, still, the NYT celebrates the Pentagon’s acknowledgment that “while the United States remains the world’s leading military power, it is much more dependent on allies to help maintain international stability.”

    Of course, the U.S. carries a disproportionate share of the military burden of its alliances and international missions because it is singularly committed to defending liberty and responding to humanitarian need abroad.  The recent response to the earthquake in Haiti, which was predominantly funded and manned by the U.S., is one example.  Indeed, over 20,000 U.S. troops and 41 C-17s (among other platforms) are being used in Haiti relief operations.  But you wouldn’t know it listening to President Obama dismissing these essential, unique airplanes as “pure waste” on Monday.

    This is true even beyond our geographic neighborhood, as with our efforts to protect Muslims from genocide in the Balkans during the 1990s.  As House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), said at Heritage earlier toady, no fewer than 30 countries around the world rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their core security.

    The Obama Administration’s policy of engagement and negotiations has so far failed to curtail Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs, or to strengthen the protection of human rights in China or Iran. If the U.S. has indeed decided to become “more dependent” on the international system and less dependent on our military might to underpin global stability, it is trading in a robust instrument of global liberty for a weaker one.   Just as no country can be expected to provide security and pursue its interests solely through the use of military power, no country can expect to be taken seriously during high-stakes negotiations without the potential threat of military force to back up its word.  Not only do most of our allies lack the military resources to defend nations from aggression or to respond effectively to crises, but many international alliances and institutions are further constrained because they are dominated by the hostile powers they are intended to restrain.

    In this international environment, the U.S. should do all it can to maintain a broad spectrum of core defense capabilities that can be called upon at any time to respond to any threat or challenge. For example, the U.S. should invest in more modern, fifth-generation stealth fighters—which cannot by any reasonable accounting be called anachronistic relics—and begin developing a sixth-generation aircraft to maintain our military advantage and deterrent.  Russia just unveiled its stealth fighter jet, the Sukhoi T-50, late last month, and numerous other countries are challenging our dominance of the skies.

    As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out this week, it is not a cause for celebration, but a cause for consternation, that the military has been handed an insufficient budget that will force it to make “tough choices” that reduce our capabilities and make America increasingly vulnerable.  Theodore Roosevelt understood that a wiser approach was to talk softly and carry a big stick.  The NYT naively believes the Administration should take the stick off the table and dismantle it entirely, even before the talking yields any tangible results.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to The NYT: Talk Softly and Ditch that Anachronistic, Unproven, Cold War-Era Stick

    1. Phil Crouthamel, Sev says:

      As an USAF Academy grad and retired career nonflyer, I beleive we will rue the day we made the dramatic cuts we did to the F22 program. All the promises to use the F35 instead are already being dropped because of the F35 program cost creep so the numbers bought will have to be smaller. We will be left with either very old legacy fighters or seriously reduced fleet numbers. Sec Gates has seriously weakened the Air Force for the forseeable future.

    2. Joe Anderson, New Yo says:

      Gates has made a huge blunder and misinformed the President. The F-35 is a severely performance compromised aircraft that will not be able to hold off the threat of cheaper and highly advanced Soviet made planes. It should also be expected that American Allies will start to "defect" or reduce their orders of F-35s to complicate matters. Cutting off production and funding of the F-22 is a HUGE mistake. The Sukhoi T-50 and upgraded versions of the Su-27M/Su-35 family will reduce American air dominance. The proliferation and export of advanced Soviet aircraft will increasingly put American interests and lives at risk.

      The "technology gap" between the U.S and advanced Soviet designs are becoming smaller and aggravated by their superiority in numbers and cheaper costs. The U.S. can't afford short-sightedness or compromising our technological advantage.

    3. Peter Austin, TX says:

      The U.S. government has a responsibility to not only protech American interest, but also the servicemen and women. The cancellation of the F-22 platform severely jeopardizes both.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.