Backward Thinking at the Times

Today's New York Times' Editorial "A Science-Fiction Army" exhibits an amazing combination of a lack of facts, a denial of history, and a foolish lack of research and common sense. The premise of this article is that the American military is too focused on unproven and futuristic weaponry, when they should be more concerned with increasing the budget for and improving armor on equipment currently deployed.

"...America's armed forces too often end up with enormous shares of their overall budgets committed to expensive toys that have little practical combat use - at the expense of more prosaic but real needs like enlistment bonuses or better armor for Humvees exposed to rocket-propelled grenades. "

"That sorry pattern now threatens to play itself out over the Army's stubborn commitment to the ultra-high-technology complex of weapons, robots and communications networks known collectively as Future Combat Systems. The original vision of a light and highly mobile force that could do with less armor because it would have more advanced information about enemy movements is more suitable to battles against recognizable, conventional forces on relatively open terrain than in the new world ushered in by 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Of course, what's an article in the Times without an "Iraq is a quagmire" line?

"...the Iraq war has turned into an indefinitely prolonged campaign against hit-and-run insurgents who melt in and out of cities and villages and fire rocket-propelled grenades that make armored vehicles a life-and-death need."

The article goes on to state unconfirmed and sourceless numbers on how much the military's Future Combat Systems cost.

Alright, let's start at the beginning. How many "futuristic weapons" programs have the army funded in the past that have now become so important or synonymous with our military and civilian lives that we have forgotten about their beginnings? Let's take an example of one of the military's "frivolous" wastes of money - precision munition technology. If you've never heard of the Thanh Hoa Bridge in Vietnam, look it up. It was a militarily important target, and after 800 sorties were flown against it the bridge still stood. Not until four sorties with laser-guided bombs attacked the bridge did it fall. Now if you remember, in the first gulf war only 10% of the munitions dropped were "smart" bombs - in this Iraqi war, 90% of the weapons were smart. Why did it take so long for the military to implement these new guided munitions strategies when they knew 30 years ago they were so successful? Military spending cuts in the days after Vietnam - for those who believed precision munitions technology should sit second chair to more "practical" military needs.

I wonder now how much liberal opposition was aimed at the development of GPS, or unmanned aerial surveillance drones? The Times editorial would like us to believe that these kinds of technology don't help our military in the war on terror, when actually it is our use of GPS and unmanned drones that have allowed us to track and destroy many "hit-and-run insurgents" that the Times editorial staff describe as so elusive.

The simple fact of the matter is that no amount of armor and armor plating in Humvees can protect them from an properly aimed RPG. It is the military's commitment to developing new and innovative technology that will allow our military to accomplish its objectives in ways that keep our personnel safe.

The Times is simply and shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon of slashing the military's budget, while at the same time using the excuse of fighting for "armor for the troops." Our military's commitment to research and new technology should be greatly funded; the evidence for this being in their past research and development accomplishments in keeping military personnel out of harm's way.