F-22 and a nation in decline
Mark Helprin--novelist and conservative--has written a devastating critique of America's defense meltdown in today's Wall Street Journal. Ostensibly it's a defense of the F-22 Raptor, but in a larger sense it's a broadside at a people and a government that would rather bail out General Motors and the United Auto Workers than properly equip its armed forces. It begins:
Cancelling the F-22 Raptor, the most capable fighter plane ever produced, is yet another act in the tragedy of a nation that, bankrupting itself, embracing moral decline, and apologizing to its enemies, is losing the will to prevail. In pursuit of false prosperities that have failed even the economy, America for three presidencies and an entire generation has diminished its arsenals, unbalanced its military, and forgotten its genius for strategy.I'm not so sure about that last bit: when did the US ever have a genius for strategy? (Tactics, yes, and even operational art, but grand strategy seems always to elude us.) But for the rest, I think I'd rather live in a country guarded by the F-22 than not. Read it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Labels: F-22, governmental motors, the American Century
posted by Daniel Ford @ 8:12 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
It must be a magnificent weapon indeed if the entire future of Western Civilization depends on it.One thing supporters of the F22 program never mention is that they are so expensive we can't afford to lose any! And it takes so long to produce one that any war would likely be over before we could replace our loses.It's been so long since we've taken on an opponent who can shoot down our aircraft or sink our ships in significant numbers we've forgotten what it's like. Are we really worried that an industrial behemouth like Iran is going to come up with North Vietnamese caliber air defense. And is anyone really imagining a future war with India? As far as europe is concerned, is it not time that europeans start wondering if THEIR fighters will give them an edge in any future conflict with Russia? And does it really matter to our troops in Afganistan if the jdam is dropped by a B1, F16, F22, F35 or a Sopwith Camel?
It's not so much the difference between the F-22 and the Sopwith Camel--though I wouldn't care to have to fly either one--as between Col Gentile and Col-Dr Nagl. It's all very well to presume that the next war will involve the US against fanatics with AK-47s and RPGs, but what if it isn't?. A military equipped to fight a conventional war can transition to counter-guerrilla ops, as the US Army did in Iraq. But an army equipped to fight guerrillas will get rolled by the Russian or Chinese armies, or indeed by the Indians. Would you bet your country and your descendants on the wishful notion that there won't be something worth fighting for in the next fifty years?
To be sure, I am conflicted by this debate, as I am about the F-22. But there is something wonderfully comforting about a military that none can challenge except with buried mines. Why would we voluntarily give that up?
As for affording the F-22, hey, call it stimulus! Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Post a Comment
<< Home